CSDP

For discussions on politics and current events.
User avatar
Tiny Toy
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 06 May 2015, 09:54

CSDP

Post by Tiny Toy »

The European Council has recently published its interim conclusions on CSDP and the EDA published the outcome of its Steering Board. Part of this result is that by the end of the year there should be a joint framework for addressing hybrid warfare threats to the EU.

What do people think to some of the implied proposals here, notably that CSDP should be strengthened and potentially overlap into areas thus far heavily demarcated as NATO exclusives (territorial defence)? Should CSDP's remit be confined to the Petersberg tasks or is there a need for greater European military integration?

IrishT
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 07 May 2015, 11:01
Bahamas

Re: CSDP

Post by IrishT »

Tiny Toy wrote:The European Council has recently published its interim conclusions on CSDP and the EDA published the outcome of its Steering Board. Part of this result is that by the end of the year there should be a joint framework for addressing hybrid warfare threats to the EU.

What do people think to some of the implied proposals here, notably that CSDP should be strengthened and potentially overlap into areas thus far heavily demarcated as NATO exclusives (territorial defence)? Should CSDP's remit be confined to the Petersberg tasks or is there a need for greater European military integration?
I think the only reason why France/Germany are pushing for a European military is that they harbour grandiose ideas of competing with the US on the world stage :/

Europe should probably have a Border Guard (somewhat like the Coast Guard meets National Guard in the US) to stop with illegal migration (a la Libya), but that (and the Battle Groups) should be the extent of Brussels' power.

User avatar
Tiny Toy
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 06 May 2015, 09:54

Re: CSDP

Post by Tiny Toy »

IrishT wrote:Europe should probably have a Border Guard (somewhat like the Coast Guard meets National Guard in the US) to stop with illegal migration (a la Libya), but that (and the Battle Groups) should be the extent of Brussels' power.
You can understand that Finland and Sweden are somewhat concerned by hybrid warfare. What would your answer to them be?

IrishT
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 07 May 2015, 11:01
Bahamas

Re: CSDP

Post by IrishT »

Tiny Toy wrote:
IrishT wrote:Europe should probably have a Border Guard (somewhat like the Coast Guard meets National Guard in the US) to stop with illegal migration (a la Libya), but that (and the Battle Groups) should be the extent of Brussels' power.
You can understand that Finland and Sweden are somewhat concerned by hybrid warfare. What would your answer to them be?
Join NATO.

User avatar
Tiny Toy
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 06 May 2015, 09:54

Re: CSDP

Post by Tiny Toy »

IrishT wrote:Join NATO.
Finland joining NATO very probably would be a point of no return for Putin.
These users liked the author Tiny Toy for the post:
Ian Hall

IrishT
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 07 May 2015, 11:01
Bahamas

Re: CSDP

Post by IrishT »

Tiny Toy wrote:
IrishT wrote:Join NATO.
Finland joining NATO very probably would be a point of no return for Putin.
Then it is in Finland's interests to maintain an alliance with either a NATO member independent of actually joining NATO (as a sort of proxy-membership), or to maintain a joint Battle-group under the EUBG scheme with a NATO member (Estonia?), or to maintain a sufficiently large deterrent. Neither of these instances require duplication of assets between the EU and NATO.

User avatar
Tiny Toy
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 06 May 2015, 09:54

Re: CSDP

Post by Tiny Toy »

IrishT wrote:Then it is in Finland's interests to maintain an alliance with either a NATO member independent of actually joining NATO (as a sort of proxy-membership),
A military alliance with a single other NATO nation is unlikely to provide enough clout to resist Russia, unless that nation is the USA, and entering such an alliance would in any case have the same effect as joining NATO for all relevant purposes.
or to maintain a joint Battle-group under the EUBG scheme with a NATO member (Estonia?),
However EU Battlegroups as they stand do not have responsibility for territorial defence, which is the issue in question.
or to maintain a sufficiently large deterrent.
As in nuclear deterrent? They can't do that as they are signatories to NPT.

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: CSDP

Post by arfah »

-<>-<>-<>-
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

IrishT
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 07 May 2015, 11:01
Bahamas

Re: CSDP

Post by IrishT »

Tiny Toy wrote:A military alliance with a single other NATO nation is unlikely to provide enough clout to resist Russia, unless that nation is the USA, and entering such an alliance would in any case have the same effect as joining NATO for all relevant purposes.

However EU Battlegroups as they stand do not have responsibility for territorial defence, which is the issue in question.

As in nuclear deterrent? They can't do that as they are signatories to NPT.
The alliance is not solely a bilateral agreement. If Estonia joins Finland, and Russia engages Estonia, then Estonia could, for all intents and purposes, invoke article 5 as Estonia/Finland did not start the war. This is the proxy-membership goal.

The Battle Groups can be deployed for peace-making or peace-keeping. In this instance, peace-making would likely be the modus operandi, no?

No, not a nuclear deterrent. Nuclear weapons would not be used in an aggressive maneouvre by Russia to grab land. To do so would require conventional military forces, and if Finland maintains a sizeable defence force it may provide for the possibility of a highly bloody invasion. The maintenance of a large force in and of itself would be a deterrent.

User avatar
Tiny Toy
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 06 May 2015, 09:54

Re: CSDP

Post by Tiny Toy »

IrishT wrote:The alliance is not solely a bilateral agreement. If Estonia joins Finland, and Russia engages Estonia, then Estonia could, for all intents and purposes, invoke article 5 as Estonia/Finland did not start the war. This is the proxy-membership goal.
I think something went wayward in your description. We were talking about defending Finland, not Estonia. If Estonia and Finland had an alliance, and Russia invaded Finland, Estonia might be compelled to come to Finland's aid, but NATO would not. And I don't understand what you mean by "proxy-membership goal", as far as I can see there is no such thing in the Washington Treaty.
The Battle Groups can be deployed for peace-making or peace-keeping. In this instance, peace-making would likely be the modus operandi, no?
No. Peacemaking is carefully defined within the Petersberg tasks so as not to be able to apply to this very issue. It only refers to crisis management (handling riots, for instance) and not territorial defence. See this for an explanation.
if Finland maintains a sizeable defence force it may provide for the possibility of a highly bloody invasion. The maintenance of a large force in and of itself would be a deterrent.
It's not possible for Finland to maintain enough conventional forces by itself to defend against a Russian threat. Russian regular and reserve forces alone are more than half of the entire Finnish population.

IrishT
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 07 May 2015, 11:01
Bahamas

Re: CSDP

Post by IrishT »

Tiny Toy wrote:I think something went wayward in your description. We were talking about defending Finland, not Estonia. If Estonia and Finland had an alliance, and Russia invaded Finland, Estonia might be compelled to come to Finland's aid, but NATO would not. And I don't understand what you mean by "proxy-membership goal", as far as I can see there is no such thing in the Washington Treaty.
I probably made a bollocks of my point. What I'm saying is that: Finland allies with Estonia (or Norway). Russia invades Finland. Estonia comes to Finland's aid. Russia invades Estonia. If a single NATO member is attacked, would that not dictate that all members would be forced to come to their aid?
Tiny Toy wrote:No. Peacemaking is carefully defined within the Petersberg tasks so as not to be able to apply to this very issue. It only refers to crisis management (handling riots, for instance) and not territorial defence. See this for an explanation.
My bad, then.
Tiny Toy wrote:It's not possible for Finland to maintain enough conventional forces by itself to defend against a Russian threat. Russian regular and reserve forces alone are more than half of the entire Finnish population.
The goal is not to beat the Russian military, but to drive the cost of a victory so high as to nullify the benefits gained from victory. An example would be the Winter War, where the outnumbered Finns fought the Soviets to an almost complete stand-still. Yes, the Soviets were victorious, but only at a cost of 300,000+ soldiers and making relatively little territorial gains (compared to the possibility of annexing/subjugating all of Finland).

User avatar
Tiny Toy
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 06 May 2015, 09:54

Re: CSDP

Post by Tiny Toy »

IrishT wrote:What I'm saying is that: Finland allies with Estonia (or Norway). Russia invades Finland. Estonia comes to Finland's aid. Russia invades Estonia.
I'm with you all the way to the last one. Why would Russia invade Estonia in this instance, especially as it knows that doing so frees up the hands of all the other NATO members for retribution?
The goal is not to beat the Russian military, but to drive the cost of a victory so high as to nullify the benefits gained from victory.
I believe that the goal is to prevent any harm coming to Finnish citizens in the first place, which is why Finland and Sweden (as well as some EU nations also in NATO) are interested in making provisions for territorial defence in CSDP to allow EU Battlegroups to fill an area that if filled by NATO would likely provoke an outright war.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: CSDP

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tiny Toy wrote:The European Council has recently published its interim conclusions on CSDP and the EDA published the outcome of its Steering Board.
EDA making good headway (swapping spares and related services, so that decent readiness can be achieved more economically):
- members now: France, Belgium, Finland, Romania, Cyprus and from outside of the EU, Norway
- actively considering: Sweden, Greece, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia

I can see some blocks/ historical roots here:
- France/ Belgium have had co-operation as far as extending to jet training (outsourced by Belgium)
- Greece/ Cyprus (not only ethnic commonality, but both have been sourcing military HW from Russia; may be the spares are not flowing that freely?)
- Belgium/ NL: highly integrated navies, all the way to training, spares, maintenance
- the Nordics have a similar co-operation, extending all the way (potentially) to joint procurement; only Denmark would not seem to be replicating it within EDA
- Spain/ Portugal? Not aware of the drivers
- leaves Romania and Slovenia; saving money is, on its own, a good enough reason
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: CSDP

Post by marktigger »

@IrishT when will Ireland be joining NATO?

I know the Irish work closely with the Nordic Battle group on UN taskings. However seeing what the EU's misguided attempt at expansion has done to Ukraine I would suggest the Finns would be better treading lightly. And for NATO countries to spend more on defence.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: CSDP

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lots of defence and security packed into the days leading up to the Thu-Fri summit:
"On Monday, Macron will host European Council President Donald Tusk for a working lunch at the Élysée presidential residence, before heading to Toulouse in the south of France to lead a French-German ministers meeting with Merkel on issues of defence, security, and climate change.

On Wednesday evening, they will meet the EU’s incoming president Ursula von der Leyen, followed on Thursday and Friday by an EU leaders’ summit in Brussels.

One issue likely to come up is the rejection by European MEPs of Sylvie Goulard, Macron’s chosen candidate for the European Commission portfolio of industrial policy, defence spending, high-tech and space — a rebuff considered a major political blow to the French president."
- looks like the Commission is only going to have one ex-defence minister (Germany's) as Sylvie Goulard does not look like making it into her post
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

J. Tattersall

Re: CSDP

Post by J. Tattersall »

EU military projects face delays, leaked document shows
More than three years after launch of new pact, most programs have yet to bear fruit.
https://www.politico.eu/article/leaked- ... tary-pact/

J. Tattersall

Re: CSDP

Post by J. Tattersall »

We're going to build a wall
It is a tragic irony that having roundly condemned those words, Europe effectively does the same
Poland to build Belarus border fence after migrant influx
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58303921 and
Greece completes border wall extension to deter potential Afghan migrants
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/gr ... 021-08-20/

J. Tattersall

Re: CSDP

Post by J. Tattersall »

To misquote the opening words to each episode of Stingray
Standby for inaction !
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-hesi ... an-europe/
EU still hesitant on military force enhancement after Afghanistan
In a meeting of EU defense ministers, there was not enough political will to make any promises on dramatically changing the bloc’s military posture.
The practice of scapegoating the Brits for EU foreign policy and defence inaction must surely now be at an end.

J. Tattersall

Re: CSDP

Post by J. Tattersall »

From the BBC
Aukus: Defence pact an awkward wake-up call for Europe -

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58600454

J. Tattersall

Re: CSDP

Post by J. Tattersall »

Foreign Policy, Security and Defence part of the Draft text of the Agreement on the New Partnership with the United Kingdom
https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/ ... kingdom_en

Before anybody gets too excited this was the text unilaterally prepared by the EU Commission, which the UK has declined to enter into negotiations on. Read and make up your own mind either way. Remember that when you see the word 'shall' in the text that means it is legally binding (should the text ever be agreed to by EU and UK).

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: CSDP

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

The text, from 2020, still has the 'old standard' in it that the proposal for the 'Early Entry Force' is meant to address, namely:
"Financial aspects.
Without prejudice to Article 12, the United Kingdom shall assume all the costs associated with its participation in the EU military crisis management operation unless the costs are subject to common funding as provided for in the legal instruments referred to in Article 2(1), as well as in Council Decision 2011/871/CFSP1. "
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

J. Tattersall

Re: CSDP

Post by J. Tattersall »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:The text, from 2020, still has the 'old standard' in it that the proposal for the 'Early Entry Force' is meant to address, namely:
"Financial aspects.
Without prejudice to Article 12, the United Kingdom shall assume all the costs associated with its participation in the EU military crisis management operation unless the costs are subject to common funding as provided for in the legal instruments referred to in Article 2(1), as well as in Council Decision 2011/871/CFSP1. "
If truth be told I think what we're (unsurprisingly) seeing in this text are the areas in which the UK could be valuable to the EU.


User avatar
Ian Hall
Member
Posts: 490
Joined: 18 Jun 2023, 14:55
United Kingdom

Re: CSDP

Post by Ian Hall »


User avatar
Ian Hall
Member
Posts: 490
Joined: 18 Jun 2023, 14:55
United Kingdom

Re: CSDP

Post by Ian Hall »

View from a respected pro-EU commentator.

Ukraine Has Not Transformed EU Foreign Policy
https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/90234

Post Reply