European Battle groups

Redleslie2

chill wrote:

Yes and no. Yes it is hopefully the first step to being for Europe and not subserviant to the US.
But no we are not and have no need to become a superpower. We just need to be able to apply some military clout corresponding to our position in the world, as a balancing weight against the US domincation in World events.

One for that proposed Anti-american tinfoil hat forum. :mad:

Victor

m1ke wrote:

Europe wasn't able to mobilise its forces to response to ethic cleansing and violations of human rights in the Balkans

The thing is, the EU's back garden bordered against Russia back Garden....

Ivan wrote:

Secondly, they apparently have a maximum mission length of 4 months.

The idea being that a permanent (if necessary) mission would be set up in that time.

bonkey

mycroft wrote:

snip....oh ffs you muppet,

One week ban.

jc

chill

mycroft wrote:

snip....oh ffs you muppet, I was merely pointing out that having two nuclear powers does not make for the perception of a weak superpower,

Then say so more clearly.

I'm going to ask you for a link to support this, where are we precieved, says who, when, and ask for supporting allegations. And if you fail to do so, I'll report the post to a mod, I'm bloody sick of you posting unsupported claims.

It may seem hard to grasp but some of us are capable of having our 'own' opinions. I believe Europe is perceived as weak all across the world, including in the middle east, africa, asia etc. People there have a very positive view of the EU but have no confidence that anything we say or do carries any weight if the US takes an alternative view.
I don't need to find some half baked journalist to write a column in some newspaper or some web site to cite as a reference. I have business contacts, personal family contacts and on line correspondees as well as a life time of experience on which to base my opinions.

gandalf

chill wrote:

I don't need to find some half baked journalist to write a column in some newspaper or some web site to cite as a reference. I have business contacts, personal family contacts and on line correspondees as well as a life time of experience on which to base my opinions.

Well unfortunately for you we need more than your hearsay as proof. I believe you have been warned in the past about backing up your facts and it is plainly clear that you have ignored this.

1 week ban to clarify your position.

Sand

I don't agree. It's an excelent first step in the development of this force, giving them an opportunity to develop their communications and co-ordination capabilities in a fairly soft environment to start with. Different languages, different equipment, different traditions, different systems.

NATO and that Partnership for Peace should have got most (western )European forces integrated by now in terms of communications, equipment and training by now. I assumethey covered those basics when theyve been spending the past 50 odd years preparing to hold the Red Army at the fulda gap.

If anything the major stumbling block will be political integration - with 25 or so voices around the table it will be very hard to get anything approaching a common position as the Iraq war showed. Add on that the deal for these battlegroups envisages a certain sort of pre-emptive operation, and add to the fact many of these situations could get bogged down if one side views the battlegroups as assisting their enemies.

Why ? I don't believe any unit that expects to tackle combat situations should ever be held back sitting around on their arses waiting to be called. They need to be involved constantly in activities where they can practice, train, test and evaluate their capabilities.

If theyre assigned duties in Kosovo, and a situation brews up in say Darfur, theyre supposed to deploy inside a week or so. They cant just drop everything in Kosovo and run off leaving the place to fall apart. Someone has to cover for them - and military forces arent renowned for the speed with which they can deploy, which is why such a big deal is made about these battlegroups.

So yes, to fufill their supposed misson, they have to be held back, sitting on their arses waiting to be called.

And all miltiary forces worthy of the name are constantly engaged in activities where they can practice, train, test, and evaluate their capabilities. Having a responsibility to police a tense situation like Kosovo will not leave a lot of time for that training. So again, it would be best for them to be sitting on their arses waiting to be called.

In an ideal world these battlegroups would be used to cool down a situation before it gets hot, and then be relieved by UN peacekeepers, freeing them up to be deployed again elsewhere. If theyre being given garrison duty in Kosovo then its a clear ploy to ensure the EU has an exscuse not to support the UN when it doesnt want to.

HaVoC

European may have nuclear powers but that’s just, you have your so we have ours situation in the modern world nukes aren’t that useful especially for the task envisaged for these battle groups.

Logistically I can't see this force being very rapid. The cog of Modern warfare is the aircraft carrier I’m not sure about France but Britain has a grand total of 3. Though there getting more new carriers
But that’s nothing to Americas 13 to 14 can't remember how many. Basically you need a large aircraft carrier fleet for a mobile base and the right planes and choppers to deploy you troops for a rapid response role and Europe hast got this yet anyway.
Look at the Falklands, Britain barely won that war their fleet was like a week away from collapse when it ended.