Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/non_aviation/read.main/1018422/

Topic: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Vanguard737
Posted 2005-11-29 02:24:31 and read 1792 times.

I am curious as to current treaty's and legislation regarding Union defense in Europe. Mainly what I am curious about is whether or not all EU nations are required to view any attack/invasion of any EU member-state as a personal attack. That might be worded sort of weird so here is an example of what I mean:

Let's say the Ukraine invaded Poland. Would all EU states be required to defend assist in Poland's defense, and view the invasion as an attack on the entire EU, or would Poland be left to hope other member-states would assist them.

Not likely of course, just an example.

Also, are there any links where I can read this for myself, I cannot find anything online.

Thanks!

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Jwenting
Posted 2005-11-29 07:56:07 and read 1774 times.

There is no NATO-like system in place, except for an experimental Franco/German combined brigade.

There have been attempts along those lines, bringing all armed forces under the direct control of the Brussels autocrats, but so far (thank God) those haven't led anywhere.

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Cfalk
Posted 2005-11-29 08:08:55 and read 1773 times.

EU Defence Strategy:

Do not spend enough for defence.

In case of attack, scream for American help.

Once Americans have helped out, scream about american imperialism, and fret publicly about self-determination. Do not pay americans if asked for contribution to costs.

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: A319114
Posted 2005-11-29 09:05:12 and read 1763 times.

LOL Cfalk, that's somewhat funny  Smile

But the system you're describing, Vanguard, is already in place (NATO).

There were some attempts made in the European constitution to form a better organized European defence force, but as we all know, this constitution was sadly rejected by the people of France and The Netherlands.

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: NoUFO
Posted 2005-11-29 09:52:13 and read 1754 times.

Well, Poland is a NATO member country, as is the majority of the European Union's member countries.

Europe has shown ambitions to introduce something like a NATO-clause, saying that if one member country is attacked, the rest of the Union will consider it an attack on their own soil.

The USA, however, has always opposed to this idea, saying that this ruling would undermine NATO, despise other claims during the run-up of the Iraq war that NATO was outdated.

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 1):
In case of attack, scream for American help.

Once Americans have helped out, scream about american imperialism

I have to admit, there is some truth in it, 'though at least Germany has always coverd a significant amount of expenses, even those of the last war in Iraq. Hence the ruling of the European Court that Germany, despise our former Government's claims, wasn't really neutral.

At the same time a wealthy country like Switzerland never bothers to care for international stability and hides behind neutrality - basically a relict from the past, the cold war - which of course doesn't keep some inhabitants to applause to President Bush's "You are either for or against us" speech and blame the rest of Europe for not spending enough on defense.

[Edited 2005-11-29 09:54:38]

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Doona
Posted 2005-11-29 10:24:58 and read 1742 times.

EU Defence Policy? Defence against whom?

Cheers
Mats

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Jwenting
Posted 2005-11-29 11:34:15 and read 1733 times.

European countries in the past have had to defend themselves mainly against France and Germany, sometimes against Britain and Spain.

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Racko
Posted 2005-11-29 12:27:10 and read 1724 times.

Don't forget the Romans Jwenting!

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: MD11Engineer
Posted 2005-11-29 12:36:03 and read 1717 times.

What about the Dutch invading England? (Cromwell was very surprised, because he considered them to be allies)

Jan

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Banco
Posted 2005-11-29 12:41:56 and read 1712 times.

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 6):
sometimes against Britain

Really? When?

Britain's interests always lay outside of Europe, historically. When have the British ever tried to invade Europe?

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Pyrex
Posted 2005-11-29 13:05:55 and read 1704 times.

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 6):
European countries in the past have had to defend themselves mainly against France and Germany, sometimes against Britain and Spain.

There you go with your rabid anti-French behavior. Put a leash on it.

We have always had to defend ourselves from the Spanish and only once from the French. The only war we ever had with the Germans we started it so I can't really complain.
And don't tell me you're one of those that blames the Germans for World War I...

Quoting Banco (Reply 9):
Really? When?

When we went to war with Napoleon to protect you from being completely cut-off from the continent and as a thank-you we got ten years of British occupation.

All is now in the past, though.

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: A319114
Posted 2005-11-29 13:42:30 and read 1696 times.

Quoting Banco (Reply 9):
When have the British ever tried to invade Europe?

Uhm probably forgot about the Hundred Years War, haven't you?

But I don't see the point of complaining about who attacked who. Almost every major European nation has attacked one or more European countries at least sometime in history...

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: ME AVN FAN
Posted 2005-11-29 13:53:40 and read 1689 times.

Quoting Vanguard737 (Thread starter):
whether or not all EU nations are required to view any attack/invasion of any EU member-state as a personal attack

The E.U. is NOT a military pact. Cyprus, Ireland, Sweden, Finland, and Austria are even NEUTRAL countries by constitution, Finland and Austria even by a "contract" with Russia (ex USSR) which is "linked" with their constitutions.
-
Your example however shows that "treaties" overlap as Poland is member of NATO, just like a majority of E.U. members.

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: ME AVN FAN
Posted 2005-11-29 13:58:24 and read 1688 times.

Quoting Banco (Reply 9):
When have the British ever tried to invade Europe?

well, whenever it truly and correctly can be described as a liberation, it was an invasion, and British troops were one of the two main forces. Once before, it was just a threat and that was during the Omdurman incident, when the British government forced the French to withdraw their Tchad army from Khartoum by threatening them to invade either Britanny or Normandy.

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Banco
Posted 2005-11-29 14:21:52 and read 1681 times.

Quoting A319114 (Reply 11):
Quoting Banco (Reply 9):
When have the British ever tried to invade Europe?

Uhm probably forgot about the Hundred Years War, haven't you?

Not in the least - though I thought someone might mention it. Firstly, Britain didn't exist. Secondly, the Hundred Years War was a fight between two branches of a royal family, both of whom had claims to the French throne, not a conflict between nations as such. In no way can you describe it then as being French national policy to defend the country against an external aggressor.

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Oldeuropean
Posted 2005-11-29 15:10:32 and read 1669 times.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 2):
EU Defence Strategy:

Do not spend enough for defence.

In case of attack, scream for American help.

Once Americans have helped out, scream about american imperialism, and fret publicly about self-determination. Do not pay americans if asked for contribution to costs.

We don`t have all these enemies like the USA.
Who should attack us? Switzerland? These awful Iraqies with their WMDs?
Cfalk, your argumentation is unique, as usual.  Yeah sure

Axel

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: A319114
Posted 2005-11-29 15:29:58 and read 1660 times.

Quoting Banco (Reply 14):
Britain didn't exist.

Quiet a weak argument if you ask me. Sure enough, Britain didn't exist in it's current form, but it was most definately English. It's a matter of definition.

Quoting Banco (Reply 14):
Secondly, the Hundred Years War was a fight between two branches of a royal family, both of whom had claims to the French throne, not a conflict between nations as such.

Again, not a very strong argument. Applying this view on other wars, I don't think you'll find a lot of wars which are actually a real conflict between 'nations' (nation is a really abstract term anyway). Most wars, if not all, are between governments or leading elites, which use the people (or the 'nation' if you want to put it that way) to fight it out on the battlefield.

Still, bottom line is that English people have invaded a part of Europe during the Hundred Years war.

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Banco
Posted 2005-11-29 15:36:57 and read 1656 times.

Quoting A319114 (Reply 16):
Quiet a weak argument if you ask me. Sure enough, Britain didn't exist in it's current form, but it was most definately English. It's a matter of definition.

The original point started off with "British". If you want to talk "English" it's a different matter.

Quoting A319114 (Reply 16):
Again, not a very strong argument. Applying this view on other wars, I don't think you'll find a lot of wars which are actually a real conflict between 'nations' (nation is a really abstract term anyway). Most wars, if not all, are between governments or leading elites, which use the people (or the 'nation' if you want to put it that way) to fight it out on the battlefield.

Still, bottom line is that English people have invaded a part of Europe during the Hundred Years war.

Sorry, that's not the case. At the outbreak of the Hundred Years War, the "English" royal family didn't even speak English, they spoke French. They were a French Royal Family, claiming their French possessions. By the time of Agincourt, the attitude had changed, and they became rather self-righteously English. I might point out that the French (genuinely French) side of that family laid claim to the English throne on the same basis.

Again, none of this was a war between nation states, which was the point of the original poster. You need to get to about 1500 before that can be said to be the case.

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: L410Turbolet
Posted 2005-11-29 15:48:29 and read 1649 times.

Quoting Vanguard737 (Thread starter):
Let's say the Ukraine invaded Poland.

Ukraine invading Poland... unlikely. Replace Ukraine with Russia and suddenly you have more realistic scenario.

Quoting Vanguard737 (Thread starter):
Would all EU states be required to defend assist in Poland's defense, and view the invasion as an attack on the entire EU, or would Poland be left to hope other member-states would assist them.

Maybe on paper. In reality it would be 1939 all over again...

[Edited 2005-11-29 15:49:09]

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: A319114
Posted 2005-11-29 16:41:32 and read 1631 times.

Quoting Banco (Reply 17):
Sorry, that's not the case. At the outbreak of the Hundred Years War, the "English" royal family didn't even speak English, they spoke French. They were a French Royal Family, claiming their French possessions. By the time of Agincourt, the attitude had changed, and they became rather self-righteously English. I might point out that the French (genuinely French) side of that family laid claim to the English throne on the same basis.

Uhm yes I know what the Hundred Years war was about and basically you're only prooving my point: most wars are started by leading elites.

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: B707321C
Posted 2005-11-29 16:57:15 and read 1623 times.

There is almost no point in a common defense policy, since all EU members also are Nato members, except Sweden.

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: L410Turbolet
Posted 2005-11-29 17:07:44 and read 1619 times.

Quoting B707321C (Reply 20):
all EU members also are Nato members, except Sweden

and Austria + Ireland

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Pyrex
Posted 2005-11-29 17:12:57 and read 1616 times.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 21):
and Austria + Ireland

And Finland, and Malta, and Cyprus...

Not that the rest of his post made much sense.

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: ME AVN FAN
Posted 2005-11-29 17:40:23 and read 1605 times.

Quoting B707321C (Reply 20):
except Sweden

neutral European countries
A) inside the E.U. :
Ireland
Sweden
Finland
Austria
Malta
Cyprus
B) outside the E.U. :
Switzerland
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Ukraine
Moldova
Romania
Bulgaria
Slovenia
Croatia
Serbia-Montenegro
Bosnia-Hercegovina
Macedonia
Albania
Azerbaidjan
Georgia
Armenia
-
Most if NOT all of the "NON-E.U.-neutrals" will join the E.U. later on, but few of them are to join NATO .
-
Strategically, it however is obvious that exactly most of the LARGER countries indeed ARE NATO-members

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: ME AVN FAN
Posted 2005-11-29 17:43:10 and read 1603 times.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 18):
it would be 1939 all over again...

Poland is a full NATO-member NOW, so that it neither could nor would be 1939 again

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Pelican
Posted 2005-11-29 17:46:08 and read 1601 times.

Ever heard of the WEU?
http://www.weu.int/

The EU is in the process of building a 60.000 troops strong rapid response force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Rapid_Reaction_Force

Quoting Racko (Reply 7):
Don't forget the Romans Jwenting!

LOL! Big grin Big grin

Quoting Banco (Reply 9):
When have the British ever tried to invade Europe?

In 1807 they bombed (from the sea) a paeceful Copenhagen into ashes.
By the way ask some Irish about Britain invading European countries.
Or ask Gkirk about England invading there neighbours in the North  Wink

Quoting Banco (Reply 14):
Firstly, Britain didn't exist. Secondly, the Hundred Years War was a fight between two branches of a royal family, both of whom had claims to the French throne, not a conflict between nations as such.

If your are talking about nations you can't count any war until the 18th early 19th century. According to your standards Germany started only 1 1/2 wars and took part in only 4 wars (including the bomb campaign on Serbia in 1999 as a war) in its entire history.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 18):

Maybe on paper. In reality it would be 1939 all over again...

I think differently although I think the whole scenario is very unlikely at present or in the near future. The NATO and also the EU would act nowadays.

pelican

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: L410Turbolet
Posted 2005-11-29 17:52:04 and read 1595 times.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 22):
Cyprus...

An EU member country with part of its terriory occupied by NATO member country (Turkey)

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 24):
it neither could nor would be 1939 again

Are you really so sure there wouldn't be any new Chamberllain and/or Daladier who would claim it's not worth fighting for a country "we know nothing about".
Chirac anyone???

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 23):

Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Bulgaria
Slovenia

They are all NATO member countries.
http://www.nato.int/structur/countries.htm

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: ME AVN FAN
Posted 2005-11-29 17:59:20 and read 1587 times.

CORRECTED version :
-
neutral European countries
A) inside the E.U. :
Ireland
Sweden
Finland
Austria
Malta
Cyprus
B) outside the E.U. :
Switzerland
Ukraine
Moldova
Croatia
Serbia-Montenegro
Bosnia-Hercegovina
Macedonia
Albania
Azerbaidjan
Georgia
Armenia
-
Most if NOT all of the "NON-E.U.-neutrals" will join the E.U. later on, but few of them are to join NATO .
-
Strategically, it however is obvious that exactly most of the LARGER countries indeed ARE NATO-members

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: ME AVN FAN
Posted 2005-11-29 18:04:35 and read 1583 times.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 26):
Are you really so sure there wouldn't be any new Chamberllain and/or Daladier who would claim it's not worth fighting for a country "we know nothing about".
Chirac anyone???

Sure ? admittedly not too sure, but nevertheless quite confident. Let's not forget that Messrs Chamberlain and Daladier were NOT treaty-allies in the way of NATO, and Poland was NOT allied with Britain, only linked in a loose "bond" with France. There was NO alliance-command in Brussels, and the USA were neutral. The clear and definite structure of NATO was the reason why postwar Belgium did join NATO and why so many former Warsaw-Pact members after 1991 did do so as well. No, there canNOT be another Chamberlain/Daladier.

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Pelican
Posted 2005-11-29 18:08:56 and read 1582 times.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 27):
neutral European countries
A) inside the E.U. :
Ireland
Sweden
Finland
Austria

They all have an observer status in the WEU and will eventually join.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 26):
Are you really so sure there wouldn't be any new Chamberllain and/or Daladier who would claim it's not worth fighting for a country "we know nothing about".

Perhaps there would be some new Chamberlains. But I don't think that the neighbouring countries of Poland wouldn't react. I (as a German) wouldn't want to have Russian troops in my neighbourhood again. It's just 11 years ago since the last left.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 12):
Finland and Austria even by a "contract" with Russia (ex USSR) which is "linked" with their constitutions.

These contracts can't be in force anymore because of one of the contractors doesn't exist anymore.

pelican

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Aloges
Posted 2005-11-29 18:29:13 and read 1576 times.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 2):

LOL! Next time I see you complain about anti-Americanism, I'll gladly remember this stroke of genius of yours. Big grin

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Banco
Posted 2005-11-29 19:29:17 and read 1565 times.

Quoting A319114 (Reply 19):
Uhm yes I know what the Hundred Years war was about and basically you're only prooving my point: most wars are started by leading elites.

But nevertheless it was between the Kings of Normandy and the Kings of France. You can even call it a civil war if you wish. It certainly wasn't between "England" and "France".

But hey, we disagree. No problem.

Quoting Pelican (Reply 25):
In 1807 they bombed (from the sea) a paeceful Copenhagen into ashes.

Part of the Napoleonic Wars. You can hardly say that it was Britain's intention to invade & subjugate Europe.

Quoting Pelican (Reply 25):
By the way ask some Irish about Britain invading European countries.

Yes, that's probably fair comment, particularly given it continued for centuries. I didn't think about Ireland, I was thinking about the continent itself, but you're right there.

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Cfalk
Posted 2005-11-29 19:36:34 and read 1562 times.

Quoting Oldeuropean (Reply 15):
Cfalk, your argumentation is unique, as usual.



Quoting Aloges (Reply 30):
LOL! Next time I see you complain about anti-Americanism, I'll gladly remember this stroke of genius of yours.

You are right. I should not paint Europe with such a wide brush. Just France.  Smile

Frankly, I don't see how the EU will ever agree on unified defence. Too many languages, too many non-standard equipment issues, and without even mentioning political posturing within the EU. Can you imagine how effective the American military would be if each state had a say whether or not it would send troops or money?

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Pelican
Posted 2005-11-29 19:42:56 and read 1560 times.

Quoting Banco (Reply 31):
Part of the Napoleonic Wars. You can hardly say that it was Britain's intention to invade & subjugate Europe.

Indeed, it was more or less the opposite.
It was just bad luck for the Danes, that they were forced to boycott the UK (by Napoleon of course), which it hurt their economy and were than bombed by British ships.

pelican

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Pelican
Posted 2005-11-29 19:50:39 and read 1554 times.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 32):
Too many languages, too many non-standard equipment issues, and without even mentioning political posturing within the EU.

The first reasons are more or less non-issues. Just look at the NATO. However the political problem is HUGE. But at least the EU has/will have a rapid respons force with 60.000 troops (as mentioned before). I think this is the way to go. Not a common army, but more divison of duties and better coordination of the national forces along with more political coordination.

pelican

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Pyrex
Posted 2005-11-29 19:54:24 and read 1553 times.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 26):
An EU member country with part of its terriory occupied by NATO member country (Turkey)

You are correct, I forgot about that. But that still makes them (technically) neutral. I remember a few years ago they tried to buy russian SAMs (the best) but Turkey threatened a naval blocade of the island to stop them from being delivered.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 26):
Are you really so sure there wouldn't be any new Chamberllain and/or Daladier who would claim it's not worth fighting for a country "we know nothing about".
Chirac anyone???

Was it worth fighting non-existant WMD?

Quoting Pelican (Reply 33):
It was just bad luck for the Danes, that they were forced to boycott the UK (by Napoleon of course),

They could have done like we did and told Napoleon to stuff it (look what good that brought us...). But I digress.


On topic: treaties are merely pieces of paper, they have no value in themselves, as countries always act solely with their own best interests in mind (we have an alliance with England since 1384 and they rarely paied any attention to it). What matters is the desire a person/country has to do what is right and stand by its friends when needed. So I wouldn't worry too much about the non-existance of a formal treaty. I would expect NATO to do exactly nothing (besides "liberating" the Azores Islands, possibly) in case Portugal was invaded by another NATO country.

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: L410Turbolet
Posted 2005-11-29 19:56:34 and read 1553 times.

Quoting Pelican (Reply 29):
These contracts can't be in force anymore because of one of the contractors doesn't exist anymore.

I am not sure about this specific treaty, it could have expired after number of years pre-defined in the treaty, but generally speaking the fact that USSR does not exist anymore doesn't necessarily matter. I believe Russia is the legal successor of the USSR therefore all obligations, treaties, etc. to which the USSR was party to were transfered onto Russia.
Most of our international treaties were signed between Czechoslovakia and country XY.

[Edited 2005-11-29 20:00:28]

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: L410Turbolet
Posted 2005-11-29 19:58:25 and read 1549 times.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 35):
Was it worth fighting non-existant WMD?

...and you are trying to say what???  Confused  Confused  Confused

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Pyrex
Posted 2005-11-29 20:09:35 and read 1538 times.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 37):
...and you are trying to say what???

You seem to be trying to pass Chirac off as a wimp who will back off from a fight because he is a coward. I just think the one occasion he had to show who he was in that matter (Iraq) he backed off from the fight merely because it simply wasn't worth it, as I believe recent events are showing.

Chamberlain/Chirac = apples/oranges

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: L410Turbolet
Posted 2005-11-29 20:39:35 and read 1531 times.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 38):
because he is a coward

He is. And he is no different from all those Munich Treaty cowards.

Remember early 2003? Just before the Iraq war started, Turkey (NATO member) was quite nervous what the the upcoming conflict will bring. Being in the immediate vicinity of the future war theatre it's not surprising. They requested NATO NBC troops to be deployed in Turkey just in case Saddam will use some nasty sh*t against its neighbors.
If I remeber correctly this request was vetoed by France.
Now try to forget Bush, Rumsfeld, the current Vietnam-like situation, no WMDs, Iraq obviously not becoming the blossoming orchard of freedom and democracy in the Middle East, etc. for a while.
Wasn't the concept of collective security "one for all, all for one" - which the NATO is based upon - sacrificed? First time(?) it was to be used only because the French wanted to play their games and tried to hurt the Yanks no matter what, allied treaty or not.
My understanding of the aforementioned is that should any NATO member feel threatened the rest is obliged to help (or at least not obstruct help) with the defense against outside threat (even if it was Iraqi air force flying planes made from LEGO), regardless how any given member feels about offensive action of thrid country, who happens to be also a NATO member.

That's why I'm somewhat sceptical about any future NATO involvement for the protection of its own members, the small ones in particular.
How unlikely is it for Russia to flex its imperial muscles again, become real threat to its neighbors once again and one morning the people of Estonia would wake up to see Russian tanks rolling through the streets of Tallin?
How likely is it for some Chirac-like politician to go on TV the same day and say "Screw Estonia, there's only 1,5 million of them, it's too far, Vladimir is such a nice guy and Estonian Air operates 737 anyways."

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Pyrex
Posted 2005-11-29 20:49:11 and read 1528 times.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 39):
They requested NATO NBC troops to be deployed in Turkey just in case Saddam will use some nasty sh*t against its neighbors.
If I remeber correctly this request was vetoed by France.

Not only France but also Belgium. The reasons, however, were merely political. The only reason there was a chance of Turkey being hit by Iraq was because one NATO member state (which shall remain nameless) was threatening to attack Iraq. The veto was merely a way of saying "NATO treaties do not include wars initiated by member states without immediate danger to them", or something along those lines, and Turkey (who got screwed from both sides in that conflict) was merely caught in the middle of it. Believe me, if there was any actual danger to Turkey they would certainly help out (not that the Turks couldn't handle it themselves).

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Traveler_7
Posted 2005-11-29 21:21:16 and read 1517 times.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 40):
Believe me, if there was any actual danger to Turkey they would certainly help out (not that the Turks couldn't handle it themselves).

During the first gulf war Iraq fired a few missails to Israel. Why could not they do the same with Turkey this time?

Or it does not qulify as danger?

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: NoUFO
Posted 2005-11-29 21:35:10 and read 1510 times.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 40):
and Turkey (who got screwed from both sides in that conflict) was merely caught in the middle of it

Not really, because the Netherlands and Germany - the two countries the USA urged to deploy missiles to Turkey - told the Turkish government beforehand that they will get what they need.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 40):
Believe me, if there was any actual danger to Turkey they would certainly help out (not that the Turks couldn't handle it themselves).



Quoting Traveler_7 (Reply 41):
Why could not they do the same with Turkey this time?

See above. They - as well as Israel - got the latest version of "Patriot" missiles.

It's true, all the fuss has to been seen against the background that the US administration tirelessly stressed that we're living in post-NATO times and that they're willing to fight against Iraq alone if need be, no matter what the UN says (irrelevant) no matter what other NATO member countries say (outdated) and then all of a sudden expected other countries that opposed to the war to provide air defense support to a NATO member country so the Americans could fight their war.

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Traveler_7
Posted 2005-11-29 22:00:14 and read 1500 times.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 42):
See above. They - as well as Israel - got the latest version of "Patriot" missiles.

Yes they got missiles but did not got political support.

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Pyrex
Posted 2005-11-29 22:04:41 and read 1495 times.

Quoting Traveler_7 (Reply 43):
Yes they got missiles but did not got political support.

Actually they were against the war just as Germany and France (they, in fact, are the ones with the most to lose) so they did have political support from some EU countries...

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Traveler_7
Posted 2005-11-29 22:13:01 and read 1490 times.

Quoting Traveler_7 (Reply 43):
Actually they were against the war just as Germany and France (they, in fact, are the ones with the most to lose) so they did have political support from some EU countries...

It is not a question if they were against the war or not. At certain point they requested for help.

Their request was vetod and you think it is demonstration of support?

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: L410Turbolet
Posted 2005-11-29 22:21:15 and read 1488 times.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 40):
The reasons, however, were merely political.



Quoting Pyrex (Reply 40):
The veto was merely a way of saying "NATO treaties do not include wars initiated by member states without immediate danger to them", or something along those lines

What the "real" or real reasons were is not important, becuas eit's just dirty politics. The bottom line is NATO failed and failed miserably. "Post-NATO times" could be a matter of only two election terms in the US; once the mad cowboy is out of the White House (4 years too late) I believe a lot of the Transatlantic bitterness will eventually disappear.
I am not so sure about this side of the pond...

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 40):
Believe me, if there was any actual danger to Turkey they would certainly help out (not that the Turks couldn't handle it themselves)

Was anyone REALLY certain in March 2003 that Saddam can't fire a few random Scuds loaded with God knows what? Hussein's track record as far as use of chemical weapons is well known.
Whether the Turks could handle it not is irrelevant, the point is their request for help was turned down because you-know-who wanted to play it's power games. BTW, is this the whole purpose of you-know-who's half-pregnant membership in NATO? To stay out of military stuff, which might get messy, but effectively sabotage the NATO ability to act thanks to its "political" membership?

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: NoUFO
Posted 2005-11-29 23:18:06 and read 1472 times.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 46):
Was anyone REALLY certain in March 2003 that Saddam can't fire a few random Scuds loaded with God knows what?

That's why they got the missiles, remember?

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: ME AVN FAN
Posted 2005-11-30 09:56:35 and read 1428 times.

Quoting Pelican (Reply 29):
Finland and Austria even by a "contract" with Russia (ex USSR) which is "linked" with their constitutions.

These contracts can't be in force anymore because of one of the contractors doesn't exist anymore.

All rights and obligations of the USSR were taken over by the Russian Federation on the day Russia as a separate political state was established. All the diplomatic representations, trade-missions and USSR-state-companies also were taken over by Russia entirely.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 36):
I believe Russia is the legal successor of the USSR therefore all obligations, treaties, etc. to which the USSR was party to were transfered onto Russia.

definitely so. As I think YOU possibly understand Russian you might even find some material about this in a Russian WEBsite .

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Pelican
Posted 2005-11-30 16:16:17 and read 1400 times.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 48):
All rights and obligations of the USSR were taken over by the Russian Federation on the day Russia as a separate political state was established. All the diplomatic representations, trade-missions and USSR-state-companies also were taken over by Russia entirely.

That might be so. But according to this treaty-package which granted Austria independence, Austria wasn't allowed to have missiles (not on the ground, not on planes...) But now they have missiles. I think this treaty became obsolete after the End of the cold war. Your are right about Russia being the legal successor of the USSR. But I think - although I'm not sure - this treaty doesn't exist anymore. Are there any Austrians who know it for sure?

pelican

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Racko
Posted 2005-11-30 17:02:25 and read 1389 times.

Austria declared the part of the treaty limiting their militaty obsolete. The allies didn't protest -> missiles.

About Austrias military:

During an exercise, a German Tornado accidently flew into Austrian airspace. He was contacted on the radio:

"To the unidentified flying object, immediately leave the Austrian airspace, or we will send up our fighter jets!"
The Tornado crew replied:
"Just one, or both of them?"



[Edited 2005-11-30 17:03:21]

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: ME AVN FAN
Posted 2005-11-30 18:58:06 and read 1374 times.

Quoting Pelican (Reply 49):
although I'm not sure - this treaty doesn't exist anymore.

as I stated in another response on this thread I do NOT speak Russian and therefore canNOT work with Russian-language-WEBsites. What I remember however is that Mr Yeltzin somewhere in the 90ies in an interview stated that for him the treaties with Finland and Austria still were/are valid, whenever he declared NOT to have the intention to take those treaties too literally and too strict. For him it was a kind of "framework". That would explain the missiles-thing .

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: Pelican
Posted 2005-11-30 19:06:04 and read 1370 times.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 51):
What I remember however is that Mr Yeltzin somewhere in the 90ies in an interview stated that for him the treaties with Finland and Austria still were/are valid, whenever he declared NOT to have the intention to take those treaties too literally and too strict.

If he had done otherwise Austria and Finland could had never joined the EU. Being EU member means you are not neutral anymore. There is a reason why both countries haven't joined the EU until 1995 - because of the USSR.

I guess Putin wouldn't care about Austria joining the NATO after the Baltics have joined, which is/was a much bigger problem for Russian politicians and military.

pelican

Topic: RE: European Union Defense Policy
Username: ME AVN FAN
Posted 2005-11-30 21:40:02 and read 1357 times.

Quoting Pelican (Reply 52):
Being EU member means you are not neutral anymore

THIS however simply is NOT correct. None of the neutral countries who joined the E.U. have given up the neutrality. The E.U. is NOT a military pact, not at all. Some East-European countries joined NATO exactly BECAUSE they realized that the E.U. was NOT to give them military cover.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/