US president's Donald Trump's frequent accusations that EU countries do not pay enough into NATO has been one catalyst for them move forward with a unified plan for military cooperation. The other is that it could legitimately diminish the bloc's dependence on US military support.
EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, called the pact "historic" as "the real problem is not how much we spend, it is the fact we spend in a fragmented manner." She also said it would strengthen the work of the US-led NATO.
Comment: So is it actually 'shaking off' dependence on the psychopathic warmongers in the US or is it just another US proxy army this time in Europe??
The UK had always resisted the idea of joint EU defense, fearing some kind of big "European army," but the country's planned exit from the bloc has removed that hurdle, allowing 23 other EU countries to move forward. Once Brexit happens, the UK could still possibly be involved, but for a price.
The group will have a €5 billion ($5.8 billion) European Defense Fund to buy weapons, a different fund for operations, and also get money from the EU budget for research. In the end, it means that the EU would have stronger, better synchronized national military forces to respond to crises together. German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel called it a "milestone in European development."
Comment: Recent leaks from within Germany may provide some clues as to where this may be heading:
- Leaked German military doc 'predicts' EU collapse & rise of pro-Russian 'Eastern bloc' by 2040
- Leaked defense plan calls Germans to store 10-day emergency stock of food, water in case of major disaster
Co-development of weapons could be good news for European defense companies. "I think it is a potential game-changer," Haman Buskhe, the CEO of Swedish defense company Saab told the Wall Street Journal (paywall). "This could develop new products and help increase efficiency in Europe."
The next step will be for EU leaders to sign the legally binding agreement in December.
Is not the "USA" a proxy to the 'United' State of a global agenda?
Is the 'globalist agenda' the driving power or the uprising powerlessness?
Is the global possession and control of wealth, bankruptcy?
Is narrative control the desperate shoring up or tyrannous assertion of 'necessary' illusions?
When the tares are so grown in with the roots of the crop, are they 'Too big (in terms of feared outcome) to be allowed to fail? Or is a parasitic usurping of our true being generating the conditions of its own demise, partly through the destruction of its host - but actually through the termination of the hosting service by aligning in true - despite the feared outcome?