Anybody read about how the European Union wants to start it's own army? They're using the excuse that they cannot rely upon America or NATO to fulfill their security needs.
Let's take stock here... even with Great Britain gone, the EU currently collectively has nearly the same Gross Domestic Product as the United States, and nearly a hundred million more people.
With them collecting the European Union under one banner to create a superstate, such a military would easily rival that of the United States in terms of manpower, funding and technology, and would far surpass that of the Russians.
There's no doubt man, they're preparing for war. If Hillary Clinton wins in November, you can bet your ass that war will get the green light.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/684549/EU-cannot-rely-NATO-needs-new-defence-policy-chief
The EU and US are drifting apart, the army isn't preparation for war, but an attempt to become independent. A united Europe could more easily weather Russian and American tricks to manipulate them. And the Superstate was always the plan, except now it's going rogue.
When the EU no longer needs the US we will no longer be allies, and when the EU no longer needs Russia, they will fall into poverty and complete disrepair.
It's an odd situation, the US is going to support the creation of the Intermarium, to prevent the EU from growing too powerful, and the EU will seek to prevent it's creation by thwarting democratically elected leaders and taking eastern European economies hostage.
Russia is pretty much a bystander unless they decide to cut off energy trading or start a war over Syria(if Hilldawg is elected, there will be US troops in Syria and/or a Turkish invasion).
At least this means the bongoloids will survive, as the US will seek to support their independence while the EU will seek to make an example out of them.
War may not be inevitable, but there certainly will be more guns pointed at us all.
>>79260577
The EU is bound to fail anyway, but let's go for it.
>The EU and US are drifting apart, the army isn't preparation for war, but an attempt to become independent.
So far so good.
>War may not be inevitable, but there certainly will be more guns pointed at us all.
And there you've jumped the shark, Lars.
Let's look at the inbetween:
>It's an odd situation, the US is going to support the creation of the Intermarium, to prevent the EU from growing too powerful
Why would that hinder the process of a european army? In fact it would accelerate it. Behind closed doors the EU faggots are already saying that the eastern expansion of 2004 was a mistake.
>Russia is pretty much a bystander
No. They have vetted interests in their spheres of influence in eastern and south-eastern Europe. Their support can be mostly militarily though, because Russia is pretty broke.
>>79262811
I think you misread or misunderstood my message. I didn't say that it would hinder the EU army, only that the US would seek to divide the EU and focus on the Intermarium, Britain, and anyone else they could dissuade from joining the new superstate.
Expanding east may not be a sweet deal for the EU, but this is about territory, not economy or ideals. There are also plans to consolidate Balkan countries and absorb them, most notably in the form of Greater Albania.
The EU army will happen if the superstate is allowed to happen. It would be in everyone but the EU's interest to split off eastern Europe which not only has a populace willing to become soldiers, but also high development potential. Especially Pooland and the gypsies are interesting to the US.
While the Russian Federation has a great interest in this, there is really very little they can do, outside of providing military assistance as you said, which would undoubtedly lead to war. Neither side have really committed to Ukraine, and i doubt Russia would go even further than that or even have the support necessary in those countries.
Russia can just sit and watch, or flip the switch on energy trading and watch us all cry as the power bar on our phones drain. But that would fuck them too. They might do it though, before it's too late. Many EU countries are working hard to fill the vacuum Russia would leave behind, and many of the potential Intermarium allies are looking at fracking as a way to do it.
Sometimes i wonder if the UK leaving was a lot more intentional than it seemed. Maybe they chose the US over EU internally. But that's just speculation/paranoia, i'll admit.
captcha: 419
>>79258183
Russian Army has been sneakily preparing for war ever since Ukraine, so I'd say it's only fair. There has to be war in Europe every hundred years and we're about due.
>>79260577
>filename
Also the EU is shit.
>>79263922
>Expanding east may not be a sweet deal for the EU, but this is about territory, not economy or ideals.
Hmm... don't know. Is it? What does the EU need territory for? Just because?
I still have a hard time imagining the EU as a classical (military) empire.
>There are also plans to consolidate Balkan countries and absorb them, most notably in the form of Greater Albania.
My worst nightmare. Bismarck's words come into mind.
>Especially Pooland and the gypsies are interesting to the US.
Speaking of which. Poland is in quite a shitty situation now. They profited from the remittances but they lost a valuable ally regarding the ever-closer-integration bullshit. Also the UK was a good security partner w.r.t. Russia for them.
>While the Russian Federation has a great interest in this, there is really very little they can do
What does Russia want? Can you explain? They can't possibly have some new UdSSR in mind, can they?
>Neither side have really committed to Ukraine
EU has pumped 5bn into pro-EU propaganda in the Ukraine. I call that a commitment.
>Russia can just sit and watch, or flip the switch on energy trading and watch us all cry as the power bar on our phones drain.
We're not THAT dependent on Russian gas. And we will certainly be less dependent on their resources in the future since everybody is hectically diversifying since the ukrainian crisis.
>They might do it though, before it's too late.
You really think so? What are Russia's worries, though? Haven't they more problems in the east with China?
>Many EU countries are working hard to fill the vacuum Russia would leave behind
exactly
>and many of the potential Intermarium allies are looking at fracking as a way to do it.
didn't know that. Interesting.
>>79265600
>Hmm... don't know. Is it? What does the EU need territory for? Just because?
I still have a hard time imagining the EU as a classical (military) empire.
The EU needs lebensraum, and as i said the potential to develop their natural resources, especially in regards to energy is something that is much needed. Like Russia, eastern Europe has a lot of undeveloped resources.
The US is speculating in potential intermarium countries, not just for power, but privately to make money. Energy from eastern Europe could kick Putin in the nuts.
>Speaking of which. Poland is in quite a shitty situation now. They profited from the remittances but they lost a valuable ally regarding the ever-closer-integration bullshit. Also the UK was a good security partner w.r.t. Russia for them.
Poland is also ripe for development, and the US wants to help them. They have a decently sized army and a populace that is willing and able to not only become good soldiers and workers, but play ball with a third party(they dont like you or the ruskies too much anymore).
if they leave the EU, they will depend on US investment and development, and they will have the UK back. A country that actually benefited a great deal from polish workers, despite popular belief(economically, anyway).
>What does Russia want? Can you explain? They can't possibly have some new UdSSR in mind, can they?
Russia wants to be relevant again, and NATO is strangling them. Friction during the formation of the EU superstate is an opportunity to prevent eastern Europe from turning to the US or EU. The object here is not so much to get them back into the fold, as it is to make sure NATO can't use them against Russia.
>EU has pumped 5bn into pro-EU propaganda in the Ukraine. I call that a commitment.
Yes, and while money and saboteurs can cross the border, overt military can not. Imagine how hard it would be for military support to reach Romania f.ex?
>to be continued
i need to poop superbad + char limit
>>79265600
>Ukraine continued
The amount of time and effort NATO members have invested in turning Ukraine away from Russia proves the worth of territory. Even if it's a barren wasteland populated by vodkaniggers, it is better to deny your enemy the land. And in this case a potential customer for energy export.
>We're not THAT dependent on Russian gas. And we will certainly be less dependent on their resources in the future since everybody is hectically diversifying since the ukrainian crisis.
We started developing natural gas and looking into fracking 10 years ago for the same reason, if you recall the Russians have previously shut off energy exports to punish nations.
While we aren't as dependent as we once were, it would still be a nasty surprise for millions of yurupoors. I doubt Russia would actually cut it off now, but if they did it during a turbulent time it could benefit them.
>You really think so? What are Russia's worries, though? Haven't they more problems in the east with China?
They might have a conflict in kyrgyzstan, but only if the US stirs it up by attempting to invest and develop there(hello Clintons). It's sort of like Ukraine, only it has natural resources and exists in obscurity between "two" superpowers and bunch of unstable countries. Though i think China is just biding their time waiting for Russia to sweeten the deal for them or degenerate to a point where the Chinese dare to "assist" them with a bit of military. They're patient yellow jews, they'll just push their agenda slowly through the cracks on all fronts.
A fun fact is that sometimes China forgets to mark down Siberia as Russian territory on their maps, which is funny to me but probably a bit ominous to Russia.
China is sort of a mystery to me, they claim everything, they rattle the saber and posture all day, but it seems like they're less aggressive than they sound. Like they're content just having their people spill over borders while no one is looking as seenin Africa/Mongolia
I hate the idea of a unified Europe, it will be an authoritarian leftist shithole.
I already don't like the voting decisions of Germans, which are acting most conservative and "free market" of all of Europe. I don't want to imagine what happens if we give southern Europe and France the option to decide about our policies.
>>79266508
>The EU needs lebensraum, and as i said the potential to develop their natural resources, especially in regards to energy is something that is much needed.
Well, I don't know enough about the oil reserves or energy markets. can the EU be energy independent by that?
>Poland
You think they would fare better as an independent country with the US and UK backing them? I just don't think it would make up for the obvious advantages they have right now (they get 12bn net from the EU; that's massive). I think most of EE, despite being at odds with the EU in most of it's """values""", will be the last countries to quit the EU. They are just too dependent.
>Russia wants to be relevant again
check.
> NATO is strangling them
really? How? NATO is even letting them play in Syria. NATO was more or less dead and gone 5 years ago. Only the Ukraine stuff brought the relevance of NATO onto the table again. NATO even offered Russia to have a look at the rocket shield in Romania.
>Imagine how hard it would be for military support to reach Romania f.ex?
Well, they have Sevastopol secured now.
>>79268154
>Well, I don't know enough about the oil reserves or energy markets. can the EU be energy independent by that?
Hard to say before they get started, but the hope is that it will. At least from Russia.
>You think they would fare better as an independent country with the US and UK backing them?(poland)
The questions isn't whether they would fare better, but whether or not they could continue to be sovereign within the EU. And they have put that money to good use, they are very attractive to investors now, and while US support would not come in the form of moneybags, they would help industry and development. I don't think Poland likes the idea of the EU as much as they like the gibsmedats, when it comes down to it i think they'll prefer the intermarium or even independence to selling their soul to the EU. At least i hope so.
>really? How? NATO is even letting them play in Syria. NATO was more or less dead and gone 5 years ago.
NATO is pretty much just the name the US goes by when it doesn't want to look like it's out warmongering. And the whole Syria thing was a result of the US failing to act fast enough, leaving them no option to continue on their own or creating a proxy force to do it for them. The US invasion of Syria is still very much on the table, they're just waiting for Russia to leave it open long enough.
The stranglehold on Russia has largely been economic, it has been about undercutting them and preventing them access as much as possible. They never have favorable trade agreements, and they have to deal with sanctions too. This is a reality because nearly every nation around Russia is allied with the US, or simply favors trade with them.
>Well, they have Sevastopol secured now.
Sure, but i didn't mean logistics as much as repercussions. If they wont send overt military forces to Ukraine, a country they have land borders with and significant support in, i doubt they will do much in Romania.
>>79260577
>Implying countries east and south of germany would have be good at fighting
>see ww2
