Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Europe's problems are somewhat similar to the root problem that paralyzes US politics.  MONEY.  Most US citizens would rather let willing donors with strong self interests pay for the political campaigns rather than paying for them themselves.  Too few Europeans see a need to develop and pay for their own integrated military force when the US would rather do it for them.

In both cases the respective citizens end up paying a far higher price by letting others pay for the "service" than it would cost them were they to insist on doing it themselves.  The fault is not in our politicians, but in ourselves.  The USA gets to be looted by an elected cleptocracy in the service of business and banking.  Europe gets to be jerked around by senseless conflicts generated by sociopathic US administrations for domestic political ends.

For its own security and future I believe Europe needs to develop its own integrated military forces and then either pull out of NATO or downgrade and reign in the US influence in NATO.  Creating such a force would, of itself, immediately transform NATO into an alliance of equals.  Doing so would be doing a big favor to the true interests of the USA, though it would be fought by the current administration, and possibly resisted by any successor administration.

It may be that this can only be accomplished by starting with a subset of EU members, such as the original members, who agree to coordinate and integrate their military forces and to add capabilities to them as required so that those forces can be brought to bear so as to deter any potential threat from Russia or the USA, even should such scenarios seem unlikely.  That would put Europe in control of its own security, rather than playing the Seven Dwarfs to the US's Snow White.


"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Aug 16th, 2008 at 05:43:11 PM EST
Europe spends on the military an amount which is not quite as much as the US, but is not that far away. But it's still mostly oriented towards land war against the Warsaw Pact (a fight, btw, that would have been fought essentially by European armies with minor US participation, should it have ever taken place).

Today, we have to get rid of the notion that the US military protects us in any way. All it does is create, inflame and perpetuate enemies on our doorstep, ie it actively endangers us.

We don't do war, we do stupid bureaucratic fights. It may sound silly, but it actually works for two things: (i) peace and (ii) economies not completely dominated by big business.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Aug 16th, 2008 at 06:17:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Today, we have to get rid of the notion that the US military protects us in any way. All it does is create, inflame and perpetuate enemies on our doorstep, ie it actively endangers us.

Looked at on a purely military basis, could the EU prevail, without any US involvement, in any conceivable conflict with Russia? If that be the case, why do you put up with NATO?  Are your leaders under some evil spell?  Or is it that you are so fragmented that this power cannot be effectively brought to bear?  Is adequacy of European military power the general perception of the European population?  How is it that Europe does not more effectively thwart insane US activities that are detrimental to your own interests?

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Aug 16th, 2008 at 07:22:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If that be the case, why do you put up with NATO?

habit? sentiment for bygone days?

both?

the premise that the evil bear would eat europe for breakfast is long gone, we're their cash cow, why eat your milk supply?

great diary, J.

we are very fortunate russia's leaders have cool heads, considering the abuse they've put up with from our idiotically patronising attitudes.

 we are almost as bad as the yanks when it comes to illusions of entitlement, sigh...

and as for georgia, we should not be trying to take too much responsibility for their fate, especially if they are so foolish as to poke a sullen bear.

 U.S. posturing is, as usual, unhelpful, even damaging to all interests.

the west has betrayed russia, we owe an apology, and we should be grateful to them for treating us correctly.

their first affair with capitalism brought organised crime and social anarchy, that was america's contribution...

one window of opportunity, for russia to emulate a more democratic system, lying in shards on the ground.

now it's our turn as europeans, we would be wise not to repeat the same mistakes, especially the hypocrisy of pretending we know better than they do how to run their country, or even where to place their borders. we should be feting medvedev, for example, as a pro-western, moderate leader, thereby encouraging him to be more so, instead of winding him up like a clock.

 very. very. dumb. indeed...

let's treat our own minorities with more dignity, then politely ask russia to observe and share better values, not before.

or we risk looking even more stupid than we do now!

yes, and reduce demand, become sovereign of our own supplies of what we need, because energy is the new capital, and the sun, wind and tides will extract less rent in the long term than russia.

we have to identify, name and shame those fossil fool interests that are keeping us in thrall, and continue to raise public awareness about the vulnerability we suffer because of the narrow interests of a very few, but still powerful, bad-faith actors in this global drama.

the MSM will not be our friends in this endeavour, they will come late, if ever, kicking and screaming all the way.

so it's up to us, cheerful thought, as TBG might say!

beats 'we are so doomed' anyway...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 at 01:49:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, even if we didn't have the Americans to help us out we would still need NATO to get a common military system, to coordinate our actions.

Furthermore, without the Americans we would se huge nuclear proliferation in Europe. To put it bluntly, most people don't think the French or British are as aggressive and badass as the Americans when it comes to the nuclear posture. Does anyone seriously think they'd risk Paris or London for Tallinn or Bratislava?

Europe would not be a safer place with Hungarian, Polish, Swedish and German nuclear weapons.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 at 05:07:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Do you really think that the US would risk nuclear war with Russia more than France if a European country were attacked?

If you take a narrow view of national interests, then neither will. If you ask which one is the most likely to act, I'd still say France, today.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Aug 18th, 2008 at 11:55:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, I do. That's what NATO was all about for almost 50 years.

France isn't even a full member of NATO. This does create a certain image when it comes to solidarity.

Of course Sweden is even worse, but we don't claim to protect anyone else with our non-existant nuclear weapons.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Tue Aug 19th, 2008 at 05:55:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the point is NOT to look at purely military basis as the first and only solution to any conflict.  

That seems to be the USG single-source (tank) thinking because it guarantees their mil/ind friends permanent source of income:  They spread fear daily through the media, interfering everywhere and causing unnecessary threats that otherwise would not exist.

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.

by metavision on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 at 07:00:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the lesson from the past fifty years is pretty clear: If you try to occupy someone else's turf, you usually lose. Viet Nam, Vietraq, Afghanistan (twice), Grenada, Cuba, what did I forget? Chechnya? Tibet is a counterexample, but I can't find many more.

'Course, the locals whose turf you occupy usually lose even more. But that's beside the point from a Grand Chessboard perspective.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 22nd, 2008 at 04:16:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I believe money is really a secondary issue here. The primary issue is political.

Because the EU is egalitarian, there is a strong political inertia which prevents going forward on practically all issues. Pick any topic you like, and you'll find some states willing to go forward, yet other states within the EU will block the move.

The solution has been known and opposed for many years: break up the egalitarian constraint, and introduce a multi-speed Europe. Let some countries integrate more quickly, and thereby become stronger and more influential than others as a consequence. The differential will break the balance, and allow some policies, any policies, to be followed.

Note that I'm not suggesting Franco-German hegemony over Europe, which is the obvious fear for some. I'm rather suggesting a kind of break-up of the EU into a small handful of larger groupings, and each of those groupings splitting again into smaller groupings, down to the level of individual states. The point is that policies are always easier to implement or to try out in smaller groups, and it is more efficient to coordinate and argue among a few larger hierarchical groupings, than among many equal and atomic states. This is no different than the way individual countries are structured.

I see the NATO issue similarly. With the exception of the US, which can impose its will for obvious reasons, NATO has no clear hierarchical structure, which is funny for a military organization. There are no countries which are more important than others, and therefore there is no credible policy direction other than US policy to follow.

The first step should be to elevate some countries in NATO as senior members, with power over junior members, and the ability to control local and global policy to various extents. How seniority is computed is not clear. Article 5 has got to go, replaced by a gradated response which favours the senior members over the junior members (salami tactics), just like in a real military structure.

Again, the point isn't to make some more equal than others for racist or nationalist reasons, but rather the point is to break the egalitarian deadlock among non-US states, to allow the organization's policies to be shaped by members in ways which fit their own aims better.

Needless to say, both these ideas would lead to making various members rethink whether they truly want to remain in these organizations, and

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

by martingale on Sat Aug 16th, 2008 at 09:24:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Breaking up the EU in this way would, in practice, break up the EU.  More important would be to devolve increasing powers to EU institutions - as attempted, in a small way, in the Lisbon Treaty.

The reason many European still like the EU is that it isn't very effective or efficient as a superpower - it can't really play the superpower game - and they don't want it to be able to - in much the same way as Switzerland isn't an actual player on the world stage in the military sense, but still quite influential all the same.

Most Europeans don't want to compete with the US, or with Russia, in military terms.  Neither do we want to get caught between them.  Hence the utter stupidity of Georgia's actions.

It's time I got out of this game....

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sat Aug 16th, 2008 at 10:08:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What do you mean re breaking up the EU? The model I'm outlining seems (to me at least) very close to a regional structuring, which is commonly used in one form or another in every country in Europe already (except for the really small ones).

Is Germany considered broken into pieces because the Laender have some independence? Even France has regional level structures, it is not just a hundred different departments, wouldn't you say?

You have an excellent point about the issue of superpower status. That's something the people of Europe as a whole need to sort out. I myself (as a frenchman) am not sure what direction I'd like to see, but I do believe that the world is not going to wait until organizational issues can be settled. And unfortunately the old Roman dictum si vis pacem, para bellum appears to still be valid. Europe does not have the kind of natural geographical protections that Switzerland enjoys.

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

by martingale on Sat Aug 16th, 2008 at 11:20:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
i am really enjoying your presence here at ET martingale, but your sig is doing a good job of mystifying me. care to illuminate?

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 at 01:53:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I believe it's a definition of martingale, taken from TeX file.
by Sargon on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 at 03:33:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I've had that sig on other scoop sites, before they had picture embedding macros, and I've kept it for sentimental reasons :)

It's a piece of LaTeX which represents the defining property of a martingale.

The simplest example of a martingale in this sense is a double or nothing gambling strategy in certain games of chance(*), but a better way of understanding them is that they are purely random processes, which cannot be predicted based on historical observations: if you try to predict their future, your best guess is to duplicate the present, regardless of what you've seen in the past.

(*)wherein one proves that double or nothing fails to help one win: when the strategy has no statistical trend, then there is no advantage from using it.

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

by martingale on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 at 03:44:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
um, thanks, clear as day

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 at 05:06:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks.  You learn something new every day.  Presumably the political analogy is that you should escalate a conflict unless you have the means to win at the escalated level - something Putin seems to understand rather well.

It's time I got out of this game....
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 at 07:19:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course, international games of diplomacy are a lot more difficult to analyze than simple gambles with well defined rules. Yet the neocons do seem to behave like addicted gamblers on a losing streak of late, don't they?

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
by martingale on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 at 08:15:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You read French, and you are interested in game theory - you just HAVE to read my PhD dissertation on the independence of Ukraine (long title: "the independence of a country: what game theory can tell us and the exemple of Ukraine"

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Aug 18th, 2008 at 06:09:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Did you even publish a journal paper based on the thesis?
by Sargon on Mon Aug 18th, 2008 at 06:54:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sadly, no. My jury professors disagreed between themselves, and the one that ran publications was not happy that I had, according to him, pledged allegiance to a rival school of thought, and he thus vetoed any publication.

As I was not staying in academia, I did not really care and did not fight this. Thus the dissertation was never published anywhere and was quickly forgotten.

I had done an executive summary in English but can no longer find the file; I'd need to draft it again; it's probably worth it...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Aug 18th, 2008 at 07:12:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sounds very interesting. Do you have the document on the web or someplace I can download it?

Sinon, tu peux aussi m'envoyer le fichier par email, l'addresse que j'ai indiquee sur ET lors de l'enregistrement est bidon, mais fonctionne.

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

by martingale on Mon Aug 18th, 2008 at 09:30:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hence the utter stupidity of Georgia's actions.

Saakashvili is a tool in several of the common senses and, it would appear, a very naive one at that. He does have GWB standing behind him, way behind him, all the way back in Crawford, on vacation.  But the problem was that he had a very different agenda than the older members of the EU.  He thought that he could parlay his US backing, purchased in part with $800,000 from the Georgian treasury to his US lobyist, into neo-cold war glory by reasserting control over South Ossetia.  

He failed to appreciate that the $800,000 only purchased the ringing endorsements, not any effective military assistance come the crunch.  His goal was not irrational, but his means were rash and he walked right in to a trap set by Putin.  What the EU needs is to realize that they have to more forcefully repudiate putative future members of the EU and NATO which Washington would like to arrange for them.

The EU might be spending about as much, per capita, as the USA on military forces, but, as suggested by others above, it is not getting similar bang for the buck. The existing arrangement can only really be directed by the US.  The US abuses this arrangement to suit the needs of domestic politics, as with Georgia.  The US is very unlikely to abandon that ability voluntarily.  The arrangement has the potential to become an attractive nuisance, like an unfenced swimming pool, but one that can start WWIII, just so that one US political party can gain an electoral advantage.  If this nuisance is ever to be adequately fenced, it must be done by Europeans.  Doing so would be a service to the entire world.  

The only one to come out of this with any advantage is Putin and possibly McCain.  Should this ploy work for McCain it could be much more difficult for the EU to ever get control of its own foreign agenda.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 at 12:14:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I mostly agree, but the EU doesn't by far spend as much on defence as the US does. The Americans spend about $1900 per capita, the EU about $600. Furthermore, the US gets huge economies of scale because they have one military (even though with huge inter-service rivalries) instead of 27 different militaries.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 at 05:15:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I was accepting Jerome's assertion, (Except this is not even true,) at face value.  Your figure is closer to what I recalled, along with the fragmentation of forces into so many pieces and a command structure tailor made for US use only.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 at 10:15:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe Jerome was referring to European NATO members (including Turkey), however, the EU has more people, so the lower per capita spending isn't equivalent with equally lower total spending. I have read something like Europe is spending 70% of the US, but that was before the most recent increases in the US, while e.g. in Germany military spending probably didn't even increase with inflation.

But what is the use of higher military spending? Alone France and Germany for sure are spending a similar amount of money as Russia. There is just no way how Russia could win a conventional war against the EU, even if the US would stay out completely. Even during the cold war, most likely the Warsaw pact would have lost a conventional war in Europe. Now the Baltics, Poland, eastern Germany,.... have joined the west. If at all our defending capabilities against an conventional land strike are unecessary big, not too small.
Furthermore it is possible, that Russia is especially suspicious of NATO enlargement, because NATO is already so strong. One can reasonably ask, as a non-NATO member, what are these guys preparing for with all their weaponry? Who is spending so much money he could spend for other things on defense, if he doesn't want to do provocative things?

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 at 05:27:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There is an argument, one I am not comfortable with, that it is in "Europe's" interest for McCain to win - thus keeping the Bush regime's economic, political, diplomatic and military US impoverishment process intact.  

The logic is  - the stupider the US Government - riven by internal dissension, driven by narrow special interests etc. - the more other powers - and even the EU will gain by comparison - especially if they are effectively led in terms of their own national interest - as Russia, China, India etc. seem to be now.

My major concern with that scenario is that:

  1. The US could behave even more irrationally in decline, and start an even worse Iraq type war with Iran or Russia -0 or possibly even a World War.

  2.  In the absence of very strong global governance and enforceable international law provisions (which the neo-cons have also done their best to destroy) such an emergent "multi-polar" political system will be as dangerous and unstable as that which existed prior to WW1.

  3.  I like most American's, even if many seem politically naive, and hate to see them and their country dragged through the mud.

Could they really elect McCain?

It's time I got out of this game....
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 at 07:14:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Electing McCain is all too possible, especially with the effective use of NATIONAL SECURITY.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 at 10:18:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And how, within the terms of the US political psyche, does provoking Russia and antagonising friends around the world improve US national security?

It's time I got out of this game....
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 at 10:35:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It quite obviously doesn't.  Unfortunately NATIONAL SECURITY has little to do with national security.  While we calculate national security in terms of real assets, real threats and alliances, NATIONAL SECURITY is calculated in terms of the degree to which blind passion is aroused in the "minds" of the masses.  There is a threat to the troop!  All young males go running off towards the perceived threat vocalizing loudly. WHOO, WHOO WHOO!  The senior males hope to use this response to their advantage.  They usually succeed.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 at 12:11:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This phenomenon was not unknown in Europe prior to WW2, in the Balkans, and in some third world countries.  How does it come to pass in the most advanced democracy in the world?

It's time I got out of this game....
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 at 01:14:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
At this point it's Europe and not the US which is closer to being the most advanced democracy in the world.

The last couple of election cycles in the US really haven't been anything special in US history. Vote stealing, gerrymandering, a jingoistic press and an electorate - or parts of same - with the cognitive skills of dead sheep have been standard issue in US politics since the end of the Civil War.

What changed - partly as a result of wishful thinking - was the realisation that better choices were possible. The earlier labour movements were powerful but reactive. The DFHs were proactive but not nearly as powerful. Even so - there was an understanding that a better reality was possible.

That's still around, but it's been marginalised as an extremist view in the US.

Given what's likely to happen next, I wouldn't be surprised if there were parts of the US where it's about to become mainstream again.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 at 01:44:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
...the most advanced democracy in the world.

How can this phrase be made to drip with sufficient irony, sarcasm and venom to convey the pathetic standard which it describes?

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Aug 17th, 2008 at 02:36:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have a vivid mental image of a canned-food billboard ad with the line "contains the most advanced democracy in the world!"

What?? Why're you looking at me like that? It does sound like an empty slogan, and I've just been travelling for seven hours straight...

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 22nd, 2008 at 04:29:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series