Same here in the UK. The deceased may be viewed privately, if the family wish, before the funeral, but I've never been to a funeral with an open coffin. And mostly cremation now.
European Union, member states and Agencies
- Thread starter SolarisKenzo
- Start date
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
It is almost as if it is becoming a question of when. Will the Euros say that there was some kind of deal in place that was mutually beneficial, etc? How will it affect NATO? Or the EU itself?
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
They're both kinda awkward. First the journalist is obviously a rookie. He should know on his own and then by her answer that it's a classified matter and that she's not at liberty to speak about it. Same for the 2nd journalist. And she should have just said exactly that - that she's not currently at liberty to speak about it.
Why would any EU or Danish representative even publicly speak about it? Optics matter when doing negotiations and it's easy to infer there's stuff going on in the background.
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #284
They are not allowed to talk about those matters while the meeting of the coalition was being held in Paris.
These are spokepersons, not elected or voted by the Parliament (and despite all the anti-eu idiots, the President of the commission is elected democratically by a universally voted Parliament).
They did what they had to do: not answer.
We are not the MAGA administration spitting nonsense on everything 24/7, there are things you cant talk about.
If you are told to not answer, you dont answer.
That's how real politic is, but I understand that recent developments in american politics are much more "let's answer anything even if I have no idea what I'm saying and shouldn't answer".
These are spokepersons, not elected or voted by the Parliament (and despite all the anti-eu idiots, the President of the commission is elected democratically by a universally voted Parliament).
They did what they had to do: not answer.
We are not the MAGA administration spitting nonsense on everything 24/7, there are things you cant talk about.
If you are told to not answer, you dont answer.
That's how real politic is, but I understand that recent developments in american politics are much more "let's answer anything even if I have no idea what I'm saying and shouldn't answer".
Meanwhile Denmark is holding a special session of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Parliament right now (started an hour ago), with both the relevant minister and the minister of defense attending. There's a single topic on the agenda. Not "Greenland". But a more general "Relations between the Kingdom (of Denmark) and the USA".
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #286
It was already being exposed by several NGOs but it is confirmed that the french armed forces started the 18-month cycle to produce tritium from Civaux CNPE (a civil nuclear facility owned by EDF, equipped with two very large N4 1500MWe reactors) for their nuclear deterrent.
The first isotope for hydrogen weapons are expected to be delivered this year.
Previously the CEA (Commissariat Energie Atomique) produced fissile materials for the french nuclear programme in the only in its own military reactors.
The only time France used civilian facilities for the nuclear program was in the 1970s (Phénix breeder reactor, to produce plutonium).
The first isotope for hydrogen weapons are expected to be delivered this year.
Previously the CEA (Commissariat Energie Atomique) produced fissile materials for the french nuclear programme in the only in its own military reactors.
The only time France used civilian facilities for the nuclear program was in the 1970s (Phénix breeder reactor, to produce plutonium).
the concerned
Active Member
Just a theoretical question if it looked as though the US was going to use military means to annex Greenland what would the possibilties be of European forces including the UK taking control of US bases in europe to prevent them being used. And what would the implications be.
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #288
I don't think there is any possible future where you can predict how european forces take control of US bases "using military force".
US installations in Europe are strictly monitored and every site has both an American and a national command.
US military bases in Italy, for example, all have a military garrison from the Italian armed forces and also at least a unit of Italian military police/Gendarmerie.
If the US were going to take Greenland, I'd assume we would enter a really unexplored situation.
I doubt Washington and the Pentagon would let Trump do it.
He has been playing games with everyone but nothing beyond words was used against European countries.
But tbh at this point I don't know.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
At the very least, an American invasion of Greenland would leave Americans tourists in the same position as Russian tourists wrt European vacations….FO. Probably other countries would do the same.
Does the US actually retain the ability to refuse the president if he orders military action in Greenland? Would they even try?
Even if Congress opposed action does the US actually any longer have the ability to restrain the president from illegal actions?
I have the impression that one of the reasons there has been so much mention of people going to gaol if the GOP lose the house in the mid terms, is to make it very clear to those who have backed and enabled what has been happening that this includes them.
Even if Congress opposed action does the US actually any longer have the ability to restrain the president from illegal actions?
I have the impression that one of the reasons there has been so much mention of people going to gaol if the GOP lose the house in the mid terms, is to make it very clear to those who have backed and enabled what has been happening that this includes them.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
If the action achieves Congress notification threshold, then yes.
But you should remember that a lot of actions, particularly what we might categorize as low intensity or special operations or limited operations, fall below that threshold and do not require coordination with Congress.
This is a very theoretical question because it refers to a scenario that is extremely far fetched. But if it came to reality then that would depend a lot on the nature of the base, how many and what assets are in it. Suffice to say if the US is storing nukes in that base then they're getting back home safely one way or another. Any strategic movable asset likewise.
American troops would be bringing in every available airlift and sealift capability, pack up everything, and leave. That's the most likely scenario.
It's also important to remember that this entire Greenland push stems from the fact the US has the guns, it wants Europe to have guns, but Europe doesn't have nor want to have any guns. And this translates later down the line to a Europe without guns trying to dictate something to someone with a gun, and you just know it's not a working formula.
Obviously a situation where Europe will escalate vs the US over something not even related to mainland Europe, on the American continent, yet refuse any action against Russia currently rampaging across Europe, isn't a very logical one. Even by European standards.
But congress may not want to do anything, so even pretty significant actions might get recategorized. He has already gone after mark kelly about telling generals to refuse unlawful orders.
I imagine some older heavy land equipment will be left there. High value, mobile stuff will come back. There might be a fire sale.
If you're Poland, and the Americans are leaving, Afghanistan style, the EU NATO states want you to support them and complain about Greenland, but the US offers 200 M1A2 tanks for nearly free, 155m guns, MRAPs and some older F-16, but you get nothing if you complain about Greenland. What would you do? Poland needs those tanks. They have already purchased everything they could off the open market. The idea is that Polish people man those systems, replacing Americans. high value, mobile systems, would be sold at market rate, but there would be a lot of free stuff. The US could move other stuff, from other non-complying EU countries. Heck, Poland may be able to hire some of those soldiers as advisors to help them out.
Now look up and down the curtain and see who would refuse a deal like that, to keep the important Danish holding of Greenland. If you are facing an existential threat like Poland is, it wouldn't be a debate. You would see a huge movement of ex-US material to the front lines. Germany would be deserted. Germany would likely be asked to pay for the manning of these systems in many of those countries. The stuff being in Germany is a product of the cold war, and that it could have moved further east as EU member states were bought onboard.
This would clear out a lot of US inventory, create cash, allow the US to spend a whole lot more on new stuff. It would allow it to significantly downsize its army long term, 100,000s+. Forces Europe to take the burden. Even if a lot of it gets moved to Korea/Japan/sold to Taiwan.
I think it will be more chaotic than that. But possibly likely outcomes. If I was an eastern European country, I would want a complete inventory of US equipment in Germany ASAP, and running by my defence people and say "what can we man now, what do we need? If the americans left".
Americans may keep one or two airbases for bombers. Most of the navy bases. EU-NATO will just have to accept that. That would mean at least some level of US engagement in Europe security, and capabilities Europe is weak in like air/sea power. US still wants to be able to defend itself from afar.
Realistically such an arrangement could have happened after the fall of the Berlin wall, or the Collapse of the Soviets. Its not an impossible, or improbable situation. Its been theorised for decades.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
I think Poland and maybe other eastern European countries are much more aligned with the US than western Europe.
A lot of people there and the government view the peace dividend with disdain and current European inaction on Russia, and of course rising socialist and communist ideologies in the west which are viewed very negatively in Poland and baltics.
American rhetoric on drawing down from Europe and refocusing on China has been met with a sadly expected over-reaction particularly from western Europe and champion of surrender France.
But the objective reality is that the US is very supportive of allies who are serious about defense. Maybe to teach the western Europeans a lesson they'll opt to move out of Europe entirely, so they'll feel like there is a threat to the east. But probably very receptive to giving Poland and small baltics outsized help whenever they need, and priorities in production.
I'm guessing they haven't realized how quickly Europe would descend to be entirely dependent on the US.
One of the biggest policy items on which I'm aligned with Trump is drawing down from Europe. It should have been done a long, long time ago. A lot of damage was done, but better late than never.
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #294
Thank you Donald.
www.politico.eu
EU countries approve Mercosur trade deal after 25 years of talks
Latin America trade accord wins the required qualified majority, even as France, Poland, Austria, Ireland and Hungary express their opposition.
www.politico.eu
Beltrami2005
New Member
Well im basicly from one of the most western european countries, Spain and i assure you we see it quite different than what you say. We see USA at the moment as problematic as Russia. Russia is weak and poor, it is no big danger for Europe if countered directly. The USA is a different story. If USA takes away Greenland, what will it take next? Iceland? Or even come after our Canary Islands? We move to drop US weapon systems and go indigenous. I also see that many eastern european countries agree on this, Poland for example is strict against any concessions regarding Greenland. I would go as far and think we should include Canada and Iceland in our union to counter negative US actions.
We need to establish permanent troops on Greenland, need to build up our navy (this means all of western Europe).
Common idea here is to secure our interests against Russia, China and USA. Its even more so important since Spain has high stakes in central and south america.
I think its very shortsightend from USA to drop Europe as its allies. USA will not be able to withstand China in an open conflict and as it stands now i think it would be our best interest to not side with USA, A chinese victory in the pacific area would weaken america as an opponnent and help us sustain security in the atlantic area.
Just my opinion and i apology for my english xD