quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver


The Czechs have agreed to host a US military site that has alarmed Russia who are reconsidering their own military stance.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1995740,00.html

Isn't it about time the EU got its own defence policy rather than allowing one government  divide the whole continent for someone elses foreign policy? We had this with Blair and Iraq and now we have the Czech Republic precipitating tension on the continent. From what I have read son of star wars has no relevance to European defence so why are EU countries not putting pressure on the Czechs to say no to the US?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611


Simple...NATO. We are all in it together. The Czechs are semi-members of NATO.

And even if the US was not involved, there would still be tensions between Europe and Russia. The EU believes that Putin is rolling back democratic reforms in Russia. And EU members have been very, very vocal about it. In fact, the EU has been critical that the US hasn't done enough to challange Russia on that issue. Putin's popularity in Europe is extremely low. They all think he is a rising dictator. And they blame him for rigging the election in Ukraine.

Without NATO, Europe's influence on the world stage would be weakened. This is why France is the only country pushing for a Europe-only military. Germany and Luxembourg were also pushing for it, but that was before the people in those countries and in Denmark voted down the EU constitution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Military strength is not a measure of anything other than military strength and only gives influence through threats. For meaningful influence the economy is much more important. The US can project itself militarily around the world but it can't make anyone buy its products. The EU needs to consider its own defence and its own economy because it is the strength of its markets that will give it influence, not the military, US or otherwise.

The last thing Europe needs to is buy into US paranoia, we had enough of that in the cold war. While Russia has someway to go to be a modern democracy, it is clear it would rather wield influence through its energy than its military at the moment, which is a completely rational policy. The EU just has to not let itself become over dependent on Russian enrgy.

Military strength is not a measure of anything other than military strength and only gives influence through threats.

While Russia has someway to go to be a modern democracy, it is clear it would rather wield influence through its energy than its military at the moment, which is a completely rational policy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Military strength is not a measure of anything other than military strength and only gives influence through threats.

Military strength (the use of force) is the basis of all civilization, all economic activity and is the bedrock on which all other forms of human interaction is based.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

While Russia has someway to go to be a modern democracy, it is clear it would rather wield influence through its energy than its military at the moment, which is a completely rational policy.

So ...

1.  Russia is what you think of, when you think of an emerging "modern democracy"?

2.  "Wielding power" through the control of energy supplies is cheaper than outright military force, but is force nonetheless.

3.  What is a "rational policy"?

And, as an aside, why is it a "rational policy" when Russia wants to effect political control and domination through the control of energy resources, while any hint of the US attempt to prevent the same sort of political control and domination is "imperalistic", evil, and "bad"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

And, as an aside, why is it a "rational policy" when Russia wants to effect political control and domination through the control of energy resources, while any hint of the US attempt to prevent the same sort of political control and domination is "imperalistic", evil, and "bad"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

In fact, the EU has been critical that the US hasn't done enough to challange Russia on that issue. Putin's popularity in Europe is extremely low. They all think he is a rising dictator.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

And, as an aside, why is it a "rational policy" when Russia wants to effect political control and domination through the control of energy resources, while any hint of the US attempt to prevent the same sort of political control and domination is "imperalistic", evil, and "bad"?

Just to emphasize FirmhandKY, the Russians are using their own energy for their own self interest.
 
The US in the middle east are using someone elses energy for US self interest.

I don't think anyone criticized the US for refusing to sell oil to Japan pre-WWII or refusing to sell their oil at any other time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611


Simple...NATO. We are all in it together. The Czechs are semi-members of NATO.

And even if the US was not involved, there would still be tensions between Europe and Russia. The EU believes that Putin is rolling back democratic reforms in Russia. And EU members have been very, very vocal about it. In fact, the EU has been critical that the US hasn't done enough to challange Russia on that issue. Putin's popularity in Europe is extremely low. They all think he is a rising dictator. And they blame him for rigging the election in Ukraine.

Without NATO, Europe's influence on the world stage would be weakened. This is why France is the only country pushing for a Europe-only military. Germany and Luxembourg were also pushing for it, but that was before the people in those countries and in Denmark voted down the EU constitution.

Military strength is not a measure of anything other than military strength and only gives influence through threats. For meaningful influence the economy is much more important. The US can project itself militarily around the world but it can't make anyone buy its products. The EU needs to consider its own defence and its own economy because it is the strength of its markets that will give it influence, not the military, US or otherwise.

The last thing Europe needs to is buy into US paranoia, we had enough of that in the cold war. While Russia has someway to go to be a modern democracy, it is clear it would rather wield influence through its energy than its military at the moment, which is a completely rational policy. The EU just has to not let itself become over dependent on Russian enrgy.

The military base is creating tension were there isn't any and is not a positive move and something other NATO countries should make clear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Don't the Czech's have the right to invite anyone in, that they choose? Isn't it their country?
 
If they want us, don't we have the right to go anywhere we want?

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

because most Europeons, do not agree with you meat.  For over 50 years they have voted against you and what you are advocating.  Most people in Europe realise that having US bases are a benefit, that it stabilises the region.  I base this on the actuall voting behavior of Western Europe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

I disagree with you.

If you have watched Russia over the past few years under Putin's term, they have increased their military expenses and have been conducting more and more military exercises.

But back to Europe, part of the reason they want the US is because we are a super power outside the region. During WW2, there was no obligation for us to fight Nazi Germany. In fact, in the US, popular opinion was against the war by a vast majority...something like 75% opposed the war. And the reason for this was because we were still dealing with the depression. The last thing people wanted to do was get involved in a war. Then Pearl Harbor occured and opinion changed overnight and we declared clared war on the Axis. There was also the little issue of the French making an alliance with Poland that if the Nazis invade, France will attack Germany. Well, Hitler invaded Poland and France stood still and watched.
Now in 1949, NATO was formed. And what this established is a military aliance that an attack on one member is an attack on all members.
So if another war breaks out in Europe, the whole alliance must go to war. And we saw this during the Kosovo war. Europeans are convinced this type of alliance will prevent world war 3. Russia isnt going to attack Europe. And neither will someone like Iran or Syria. Simply because none of those countries can take on all the NATO nations at once and still survive to see the sun rise the next day.
There have been some suggestions of changing some of NATOs policies and such to adapt to the post-Soviet era, but very few people in Europe support abandoning the treaty. Those that do are usually in the radical wings.

As for the Czechs, they are allies. And Eastern Europe has become a lot more westernized since the fall of the Soviet Union. You go to Prague, Budapest, or Bratislava and those cities are booming. Those places have attracted a lot of industry, business, and tourism. A lot of money is pouring in there, And this westernization is continuing to creep slowly eastward. Right now it is begun to get into Ukraine. In fact if you go to Ukraine, the differences between the western part of the country and the eastern part is striking. And right now that is where a lot of tension is building between the west and the Kremlin.
Once these governments get a taste of that money, capitalism, and self rule, they sure dont want to go back to communism. So they want all the protection they can get.

quote:



Meat
the EU has no intention, wish or benefit in bcomming a military superpower. The level of support that is required to be given to US policy is actually quite minimal in return for having American troops in situations where any attack on a European Country automatically calls in a large military force........that you have not had to invest in. EU gets equiv of 5% extra GDP on military without actually spending it. It can then invest in Medical care and soft security via overseas investment......  :) shhh just don't tell the US citizens...............  :)
 
The distance whilst at the same time intgration of the EU and USA works well in both directions. The EU should perhaps produce a greater integrated reaction force with sufficient capability to project major force anywhere globally, (France Germany & UK could achieve this at minimal cost) but that is not the same as replacing NATO and US domenance.
 
The loss of markets to the US due to their policies is occuring. Bush will not last for ever. When China becomes a clear threat to Asia and there is a striaght choice US or China on world view the EU will tip in US favour..................but only after appearing even handed. 
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Remember that the west of Europe was happy giving Czechoslovakia to the USSR,  several posters have defended the right of the USSR to take buffer states, in a few recent threads.  Perhaps the Czechs do not want to be sacrificed by the west again.  Perhaps they dream of being more than a buffer for France. 
To answer the question in the first post"so why are EU countries not putting pressure on the Czechs to say no to the US? ", because most Europeons, do not agree with you meat.  For over 50 years they have voted against you and what you are advocating.  Most people in Europe realise that having US bases are a benefit, that it stabilises the region.  I base this on the actuall voting behavior of Western Europe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

because most Europeons, do not agree with you meat.  For over 50 years they have voted against you and what you are advocating.  Most people in Europe realise that having US bases are a benefit, that it stabilises the region.  I base this on the actuall voting behavior of Western Europe.

I wouldn't count on that. Even countries whose governments are pro-American, they have large section of their population that want to see Europe succeeed and feel it can't while dependent on the US. France and Spain would prefer a EU force as would Germany which is now slowly shedding its post war reluctance to exert a presence equivalent to its economic power. There are large sections of Italy that would follow a decisive lead by the Franco-German axis. The key in Europe is the France and Germany because Britain has adicated its role in Europe in preference of being the US poodle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:



Meat
the EU has no intention, wish or benefit in bcomming a military superpower. The level of support that is required to be given to US policy is actually quite minimal in return for having American troops in situations where any attack on a European Country automatically calls in a large military force........that you have not had to invest in. EU gets equiv of 5% extra GDP on military without actually spending it. It can then invest in Medical care and soft security via overseas investment......  :) shhh just don't tell the US citizens...............  :)
 
The distance whilst at the same time intgration of the EU and USA works well in both directions. The EU should perhaps produce a greater integrated reaction force with sufficient capability to project major force anywhere globally, (France Germany & UK could achieve this at minimal cost) but that is not the same as replacing NATO and US domenance.
 
The loss of markets to the US due to their policies is occuring. Bush will not last for ever. When China becomes a clear threat to Asia and there is a striaght choice US or China on world view the EU will tip in US favour..................but only after appearing even handed. 
 

True. In a way I suppose Europe is smart by taking the US for a ride and letting it get on with being a superpower while Europe gives its own citizens healthcare and the US makes its poor do without.

In that sort of light, I guess we are the smart ones.