Ukraine

But there may be advantages to a smaller for European-focussed command structure

There aren't.

GrahamS
Full Member
Thanks inkster.

Yeah it was indeed intended as an open question:
I’m just interested to hear if renewed conflict in Europe has altered people’s perceptions of the benefits/drawbacks of a European Army or “peacekeeping force”.

I hate it, the grand alliances of the late 19th and early 20th centuries didn't end well.

The thing is mefly, you are telling is things we know already. Whilst some of us are asking questions to which we don't yet know the answer.

For any position there will always be advantages and disadvantages. One way of approaching things is to discuss them both and then weigh up the options.

The other way is what you are doing.

The thing is mefly, you are telling is things we know already.

I have seen no evidence of that, hence I posted.

I hate it, the grand alliances of the late 19th and early 20th centuries didn’t end well.

Do you view it differently to the "grand alliances" of NATO and UN?
Or smaller alliances like the UK Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), Combined Maritime Forces (CMF), or the proposed CANZUK?

I can’t see an EU army being more effective than NATO. The NATO alliance has been in place a long time, they regularly have joint exorcises C&C Will be dialled in. A new EU force won’t have those decades of cooperation to draw on. I can see political reasons, moving Europe away from the influence of the US. However weakening NATO, peeling off the US and UK will only benefit Russia.

I began to see “partisan” action on the ISW website last week I think 🤔

I would say there is nearly 0% chance of Russia attacking our aircraft carrier….. in don’t understand your fixation with this @inkster. ?

EU army was looking likely after Trumps efforts to undermine NATO

all across Europe countries are upping their military spend and recommitting to (or joining up with) NATO

So seems less likely now

However weakening NATO, peeling off the US and UK will only benefit Russia.

Agreed, but what if Russia is successful in doing so? And they will also be helping politicians within the EU that want to pull out of or weaken NATO, it's not only in the US and UK where division is being sown.

It boils down to Political freedom from the US I suppose? I think recent events have reshaped the landscape, however. With Finland and Sweden shaping up to join NATO, Germany adjusting its stance etc.

GrahamS
Full Member
I hate it, the grand alliances of the late 19th and early 20th centuries didn’t end well.

Do you view it differently to the “grand alliances” of NATO and UN?
Or smaller alliances like the UK Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), Combined Maritime Forces (CMF), or the proposed CANZUK?

I view NATO as the grand alliance. The other grand alliance will now be China and Russia.

I don't really think a European army is a serious prospect, there's not really any need for it under the NATO umbrella.

futonrivercrossing
Free Member

I would say there is nearly 0% chance of Russia attacking our aircraft carrier….. in don’t understand your fixation with this @inkster. ?

If Russia was going to attack anyone else(I don't think they will without Chinese backing, which they are 10-15 years away from getting) it'll be the Baltic States or Poland(most likely imo) to test NATO's/article 5s resolve, and perhaps Finland, not the UK. And the only way they would do it, imo, is with nukes as a warning shot. Putin is mental, but I don't think he's daft enough to open another traditional front with another country.

And the only way they would do it, imo, is with nukes.

Why would Russia use Nukes? It hasn't with any of its other territory grabs. It would make no sense to now either. Much more likely to take a small part of another country using conventional warfare, install a local leader, and then build up a stronghold there for future excursions.

Russia sinking a UK carrier (in the Baltic) with a tactical nuke was a war-game scenario played out in a BBC show.

Unfortunately, the war gamers decided to nuke a Russian base (maybe in Kaliningrad) and it didn't end well...

I'm not sure it's a realistic scenario.

As a calculated warning shot. I edited as you quoted.

I don't think this is likely, just that it's the only way it would happen while the current conflict carries on.

Does it have to be one or the other?
I didn't think the original proposal was that an EU army would actively replace NATO.

Most countries are simultaneous members of multiple different military alliances with UN and NATO being the most obvious.

According to wiki, the United Kingdom is currently a member of:
- Entente Cordiale/ Defence and Security Co-operation Treaty
- UK Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF)
- British–Polish–Ukrainian trilateral pact
- NATO
- UN
- Kosovo Force
- Five Eyes
- Five Power Defence Arrangements
- AUKUS
- Combined Maritime Forces (CMF)
- International Maritime Security Construct

But there may be advantages to a smaller European-focussed command structure

Common Security and Defence policy has a C2 (command and control) element, but nothing really along the lines of NATO. You'd just be replicated (probably badly) existing structures

 to test NATO’s/article 5s resolve

Given the abject performance of his military in Ukraine, He'd be getting very bad advice indeed to invade another country.

I don’t really think a European army is a serious prospect, there’s not really any need for it under the NATO umbrella.

While NATO is strong you are probably right.

I wondered if an EU Army might be able to act where NATO couldn't. In Ukraine we are seeing are situation where NATO cannot put boots on the ground. But if Ukraine was an EU member then presumably the EU army could have been deployed there?

Though I get that may mean Putin would probably view the EU as a similar threat to NATO (if he doesn't already).

And try to contain an increasingly well armed insurgence whilst under severe sanctions.

You'd imagine an EU army would be under the NATO umbrella, so probably couldn't.

"I dont understand your fascination with this @inkster"

I asked a hypothetical question and responded to those who replied.
That hypothetical question lead to other hypothetical questions being asked..

That you call it a fascination probably says a lot more about you than it does about me.

I am however fascinated by those on here who confuse war gaming with the real thing. As I said earlier, everyone has a plan till they get punched in the face.

I guarantee that the Navy isn't as confident and dismissive as you are and have fully considered the possibilities I have posited. If you can't think outside of the box then you are living in one.

That's three pages in a row that a post of mine has hit the top of the page....bit weird..

Also, my tablet has started autocorrecting NATO to Nazi? Maybe the mods need to check that the Ruskies aren't playing silly buggers with the site?

That will be your tablet and not the site. iOS/Android learns from what you autocorrect, mine no longer corrects covfefe to coffee now.

Not sure about all the European Army stuff, but i do know that Germany are about to ramp up pretty dramatically, and Poland will be doing the same, through increasing their stockpile and tying up with the US even more, as stated earlier, i can see a virtual wall going back up and both sides spending more on defence again.

Again with the Carriers, they never go anywhere alone, they tend to be part of a battle group, or a joint operation, either way they have lots of protection, and it's very effective.

Anyway, all of this will unfortunately not help Ukraine much in the present, it's just an utterly depressing conflict with no end in sight.

I know that Willard,

Get yourself back in the jungle!

(Feel free to let me know how many times you've heard that line...)

argee
Full Member

Again with the Carriers, they never go anywhere alone, they tend to be part of a battle group, or a joint operation, either way they have lots of protection, and it’s very effective.

Is that not one of the major criticisms of the 2 new carriers- they're too valuable and massive to ever put at any sort of risk, which either means keeping them a really long way from any actual warzones, or committing most of the royal navy to protecting them? Kind of like Hermes in the Falklands but more so.

Well the job of the Navy is to project power over distance. Every offensive package requires Defense - the same as tanks require infantry scouts and AA batteries.

A Naval group consists of a carrier with its air wing, frigates, minesweepers and underwater elements. Interlocking d3fense from all threats, for mutual def3nse and power projection.

Nothing sails alone.

Nuclear subs do

Oh dear, how desperate

Is that not one of the major criticisms of the 2 new carriers- they’re too valuable and massive to ever put at any sort of risk, which either means keeping them a really long way from any actual warzones, or committing most of the royal navy to protecting them? Kind of like Hermes in the Falklands but more so.

As dantsw13 says, it's force projection, and with the UK, we only really have one carrier group out at any time, the US have several and NATO tend to work together on this with deployments covering certain areas. To actually sink a modern carrier is a hard task as well, they're built for safety and resilience, which is why a lot of nations were shocked at how the Moskva went down, be it either via a single anti ship missile hit, or a fire on board.

Again, i can see some spending on new capital ships for the UK, Germany and Poland will be spending on a lot of air defence shielding and so on, a lot of us could be living in a time where we saw the wall come down, and then another one go up, i still can't believe how this has escalated so much in such a short time.

Nuclear subs do

The nuclear deterrent does, but the other nuclear astute subs are usually part of those groups.

NEWLEFTREVIEW.ORG "https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii133/articles/tony-wood-matrix-of-war.pdf"

I thought this was a very decent, a non-partisan overview of how things developed from 1991. Some interesting conclusions at the end. It's a very long read.

It's ultimate conclusion of comparisons with the twilight of the Belle epoque (the period of grand alliance building up till the first world war) have been playing a lot on my mind recently. I absolutely agree there's parallels there.

Some background on the author:

a lot of us could be living in a time where we saw the wall come down, and then another one go up,

As long it's on the Russian border rather than dividing other nations I'm not that bothered.

Seosamh77,

Thanks for the synopsis but I thought I'd take the time to read the whole piece.

Unquestionably the best thing I've read on the subject and it outlined many of my own fears too, the similarities between the current situation and the Belle Epoque are chilling.

I didn't post on this thread until a few days into the conflict, when it became apparent that Russia wouldn't succeed in taking Kyiv and imposing a puppet regime. My (posted) thoughts then were that Putin would look to make a settlement, whereby he would cede the occupied territory West of the river in exchange for more territory in the East, which would only outline the pointlessness of the conflict and the thousands of lives lost.

I was half wrong, Russia did retreat in the West but only in order to escalate the conflict in the East. Same outcome only with more death. Now we are looking at the potential of a long proxy war where the West will be rubbing their hands at the prospect of gradually degrading Russia's military capability whilst the Ukranians provide the cannon fodder.

It would be a shame if the frequent posters on this thread don't read that article too.

EDIT:

And it ain't that long a read either, or rather the Venn diagram betwixt quality of content versus time taken to read forms a single perfect circle.

Theres been some polling on where Europeans believed they are, which has parallels again.

This was undertaken prior to the actual invasion.

they perceive their world as being in a pre-war rather than post-war state

ECFR.EU "https://ecfr.eu/publication/the-crisis-of-european-security-what-europeans-think-about-the-war-in-ukraine/?amp"

The crisis of European security: What Europeans think about the war in Ukraine – European Council on Foreign Relations

Europeans are united around three key ideas about the war in Ukraine. The crisis will likely test their readiness to defend the European security order.

Cant vouch for how well or honestly that article/polling is.

Bullet points given are;

The war in Ukraine could mark a watershed for European security.There has been much talk that European governments are divided over the conflict, but European citizens seem remarkably united around three key ideas.

Firstly, they believe it is likely that there will be another Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Secondly, they see this as a problem not only for Ukraine but for European security generally.

Thirdly, they want Europe to respond to the crisis, with majorities supporting a response from NATO and the EU in particular.

Europeans disagree on which are the most pressing threats linked to the crisis and on the price their countries should pay to defend Ukraine: people in Poland, Romania, and Sweden are much more willing to make sacrifices than those in France and Germany.

The crisis will likely test Europeans’ readiness to defend the European security order.

It would be a shame if the frequent posters on this thread don’t read that article too.

It actually wouldn't open for me.

Now we are looking at the potential of a long proxy war where the West will be rubbing their hands at the prospect of gradually degrading Russia’s military capability whilst the Ukranians provide the cannon fodder.

Maybe, I dont really have the analytical skill for this to even remotely guess how it will turn out. I thought Russia would walk it frankly. I dont believe Jor Public wants this at all, bar a small minority.

Not even convinced many politicians want it, given the choice of supplying arms to European countries to fend of brutal invasions or having positive diplomatic and economic relations, I'd guess the latter being the option of choice. But that requires the invasion not happening in the first place.

And what are they supposed to do anyway, does sitting back and doing nothing really lead to a safer place. Or a place where an emboldened increasingly ultra nationalist state thinks it can retake whatever it likes?

It's a shit state of affairs.

I've just seen a shared article from the Kyiv independent containing this claim;

Russians killed every fifth resident who remained in the city, according to Bucha Mayor Anatoliy Fedoruk. 

I'll not provide the link as the URL itself is horrible.

Have any non Ukrainian organisations provided verification, or not yet of what happened?

Unquestionably the best thing I’ve read on the subject

Really? I thought it was undergraduate essay at best. Plus it's now out of date having been written at the beginning of April. You can debate the reasons for why this war started - that article is a variant of "It's NATO" there are other readings available.

I've read better frankly

Have any non Ukrainian organisations provided verification, or not yet of what happened?

France has sent forensics teams to help catalogue the killings

China still wont condemn the invasion and 'pledge to maintain trade relations, in fact they are still against sanctions. i do my best not to buy anything made in china any more, its not easy, and occasionally ive been caught out....starting to feel the same about India.

@nickc

Really? I thought it was undergraduate essay at best. Plus it’s now out of date having been written at the beginning of April. You can debate the reasons for why this war started – that article is a variant of “It’s NATO” there are other readings available.

I’ve read better frankly

This type of comment is not useful without some reasoning tbh, we don't know your idea of "good" or what it is about the article that you object to. And the tenor of your post appears to be an argument from some kind of authority, we need to know about that also. And the bit in bold - the article is in large part historical summary, how can that be out of date?

It does look a bit under-referenced to be sure, but this leads to the point below.

@seosamh77, linking directly to pdf files tends to remove them from their context, it is more useful for others if you link to the originating page from which they are linked (that is, the page of the first publisher of the pdf). Without knowing the context of the original publication, it is difficult to know what to expect of it (eg in terms of scholarly depth).

My (posted) thoughts then were that Putin would look to make a settlement,

If you think Putin is interested in a settlement, you do not understand Putin. His goal is to conquer Ukraine and destroy it as a nation. Making a settlement would be an admission of defeat. He has no use for treaties except as a way of playing for time while he prepares for war.

There are many well-meaning people in the West who still seem to believe that Putin can be persuaded that the rational thing to do is settle disputes through diplomacy and then join the international system and prosper. That viewpoint completely misunderstands Putin. He despises the international system, he wants to destroy it and he has no use for diplomatic agreements except as a ruse to cover for his military ambitions.

France and Canada have investigation teams in Ukraine.
Time magazine story below shows why.

TIME.COM "https://time.com/6168330/rape-war-crime-russia-ukraine/?utm_source=reddit.com"

Ukrainians Want to Hold Russia Accountable for Wartime Rapes

As the lawmakers press the case for prosecution, viral posts on Ukrainian social media implore women to come forward with evidence of sexual violence committed by Russian troops.

And the bit in bold – the article is in large part historical summary,

Yes, and it misses great swathes of Ukrainian political history, perhaps for brevity, but there are 4 or 5 (I can't remember off the the top of my head)  administrations in Ukraine between the Maidan revolution and the election of Zelensky for instance, and as per usual the NATO aspect of his essay both mischaracterises Russian (Putins) motives, and excuses it.

It's out of date because much has happened in the war since 6th April. Now, Some posters to this thread have described knowledge or understanding or appreciation of modern warfare as grubby or war-porn or fetishisation. But this essayist (like many political essayists) clearly has a limited knowledge of it. In this line he says about the ongoing conflict betrays this when he suggests that

—the sheer size of the Russian military means they can continue to fight for some time given the political will

If nothing else as been shown in this conflict, that the Russian military is a busted flush is perhaps one of the more obvious ones. That (because they often fail to do their homework on the "grubby" realities of modern warfare) the author has been shown not to understand how the Ukrainians are waging war vs what the Russians are failing to do. That essayist ( and some posters) have limited appreciation of Combined Arms combat, or why it's interesting the a Su35 is carrying dumb bombs so early in the conflict, or why the Russians have resorted to blowing up targets with limited military or strategic importance, or why BTGs and their T80s are being exposed so badly, or what import the Russians operating single plane fighter missions shows, or why it's important to destroy a ship in the Black sea...and on and on...By concentrating his comments to "the size" of the Russian forces he clearly as inexpert knowledge or is just relying on older Cold War tropes

Without that knowledge you have an incomplete picture of what's happening in the immediacy.

So, in my view, The author fails to show an accurate picture of the Russo/Ukrainian relationship - he fails entirely to mention the post 1917 Russian invasion or Nestor Makhno's limited anarchistic Independence movement  for instance,(and why that's important now) and he fails to have a good understanding of warfare- particularly this war

Well said Nickc.

I read the paper too.

The 5 scenarios outlined in Chapter 13 seem reasonable although I don't agree with the author that a peace deal is the best outcome at this point - without meaningful Article 5 type security guarantees it just gives Russia time to rearm before another invasion. My guess is that we're going to end up with a North Korea / South Korea or India / China "Line of control" situation where both sides remain armed and at a high state of readiness for years along whatever front line the war stalls at.

Chapter 14 confuses me. The concluding paragraph says:

"Some of the old tools—internationalism, class solidarity, a fierce and uncompromising analytical clarity—will be needed to rearm the left against this new round of inter-imperial contention: against the powerful, against both their wars and their peace."

I don't see anything in the paper that shows how the international left being united will solve this problem, even if one accepts that this is a battle between 2 empires.