Proposed European Army: Good Idea or Bad?
by Stephen Lendman
For sure what the world needs now is less militarism, not more. World peace depends on demilitarization – especially eliminating all radiological, chemical, biological and other banned weapons.
The only positive argument for militarizing Europe more than already would be if doing so dented US-dominated NATO, – if it meant breaking with the Alliance aimed at eliminating it altogether.
Not for reasons EU Commission head Jean-Claude Junker cites. He’s a former Luxembourg prime minister. His proposal is polar opposite what’s needed. It’s lunacy.
He long argued for establishing a separate European force. He claims it’s needed to defend so-called “European values,” face up to Russia, and safeguard against other undefined threats.
He says an EU army would “react credibly to threats to peace in a member state or a neighbor of the EU” at a time none exist except ones European countries and Washington invent.
“A joint EU army would show the world that there would never again be a war between EU countries,” Juncker claims.
“Such an army would also help us to form common foreign and security policies and allow Europe to take on responsibility in the world.”
“One wouldn’t have a European army to deploy it immediately. But a common European army would convey a clear message to Russia that we are serious about defending our European values.”
British Prime MInister David Cameron opposes Junker’s idea. So do UK eurosceptics. Tories say they’ll never support an EU army. A Cameron spokeswoman said:
“Our position is crystal clear that defence is a national, not an EU responsibility, and that there is no prospect of that position changing and no prospect of a European arm.”
Some European parliamentarians disagree. German Green MEP Philipp Albrecht “support(s) Junker in building an EU army if it means the termination of all EU member states’ armies and is controlled by the European Parliament.”
German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen says European peace today “stands on firm footing, and we step by step, more and more firmly establish our alliances alliances, especially in the security policy.”
“This interweaving of armies with a view to provide also have a European army one day, in my opinion, is the future.”
UK Independence party eurosceptic Mike Hookem calls a European army “a tragedy for the UK. We have all seen the utter mess the EU has made of the eurozone economy, so how can we even think of trusting them with this island’s defence.”
NATO’s killing machine calls itself a “political and military alliance for peace and security.”
It was always more for offense, not defense. Cold War hysteria was contrived to incite fear and assure an arms race for corporate enrichment.
Napoleon once said, “(m)en are moved by two levers only: fear and self-interest.”
Until the Soviet Union dissolved, communism was the alleged enemy. Today it’s bogus “terrorism” and nonexistent “Russian aggression” – scaring people to death to believe in fabricated threats.
NATO’s existence threatens world peace. It’s a US-dominated imperial tool. It’s a global killing machine.
It prioritizes war. It deplores peace. Humanity’s survival depends on eliminating this monster altogether.
It’s members and partners comprise nearly one-third of world nations. It plans exponential expansion. It wants new members and partners.
It wants them on all continents. It wants them virtually everywhere. It wants a US-dominated global military established.
It wants unchallenged control. It wants all outliers eliminated. It wants pro-Western vassal states replacing them.
Its strategy prioritizes war on humanity. It ravages and destroys one country after another.
A previous article explained Deputy NATO Secretary-General/former US Defense Secretary for International Affairs Alexander Vershbow runs the organization. Jens Stoltenberg is a convenient front man stooge.
Vershbiw played a major role in expanding NATO – including outside Europe. He established new bases in Central Asia. He increasingly surrounds Russia with menacing US military strength.
He calls the Russian Federation “more of an adversary than a partner.” He vows “NATO enlargement will continue.”
He lied saying its “core task is collective defense. We’re taking legitimate steps to deal with instability created by Russia’s (nonexistent) illegal actions.”
He’s pushing NATO increasingly east. He and likeminded lunatics risk turning reactivated Cold War hot.
Junker’s proposed European army increase chances for war. Demilitarization is the surest way to avoid it – combined with European/Russian rapprochement, breaking with Washington’s permanent war policy, abandoning NATO altogether, and waging all-out peace.
German Left Party (Die Linke) Bundestag member Christine Bucholz says Junker’s proposal aims directly at Russia.
“Instead of a united armed force and a policy of building up arms, the EU needs a peaceful foreign policy and disarmament,” she explains.
Britain and France believe establishing a European army will undermine NATO.
Russian lower house State Duma International Affairs Committee chairman Leonid Stutsky calls establishing it “Europe(‘s) version of paranoia (against Russia) not intend(ing) to go to war with anyone.”
State Duma’s United Russia deputy chairman Frants Klintsevich said “in the nuclear are, extra armies do not provide any additional security.” They’re extra tripwires. “(T)hey play a provocative role.”
Klintsevich called support for this idea regrettable. “(A) European army (would be) an addendum to NATO. (I)n this kind of situation, Western politicians are not shy to accuse Russia of (nonexistent) aggressiveness.”
US-led Western accusations of Russian aggression in Ukraine are baseless. Moscow threatens no one. In contrast, NATO’s push east to Russia’s borders risks possible East/West nuclear confrontation.
Peace is more shaky today than any time since WW II. Greater European militarization through an EU army increases chances for war at a time waging peace is urgently needed.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.