European defense: suddenly urgent… for whom?

There is a lot of talk everywhere about the fact that a European defense is urgent, a sudden battalion of 6,000 people is established to be used immediately, and everywhere they try to show that after Afghanistan then it is necessary to have a European defense, and a European defense of here and there. But few explain why.

In itself, Afghanistan is one of the many US defeats; quite similar to Vietnam, and to all the wars that followed the Second World War. In fact, World War II itself is the last NET victory of the US.

But no one had ever felt this urgency. The truth is that suddenly it is clear that the King is naked, that is, that NATO is a lifeless mummy. Even the US no longer deigns to involve it in their plans, and since Turkey does what it wants also against Greece (another member), now NATO is just the name of an agreement that allows the US to have bases here and there'.

This has not been officially said yet, but sooner or later it will happen. And here comes the "EU defense", which suits everyone, but everyone, even NON-EU countries. Let's see why by making a hypothetical scenario, by way of absurdity. Suppose that:

• it is official that NATO is dead.
• be it official that there will NEVER be an EU defense.

At this point the staffs of EVERY country would meet, together with governments, to decide what to do. Armies need to be strengthened urgently, and how and how much needs to be decided urgently.

To understand how a general staff thinks in this case, we can think of some simple "foundations":

• defending a territory is less expensive than conquering one , both in economic terms and in terms of human losses.
• a country with nuclear weapons is impossible to invade.
• there are three scenarios to calculate costs : A attacks B, B attacks A, A and B are stalled.

So, let's take Italy and Russia for example, which seems to be the greatest danger. So, we have three scenarios and we are the Italian general staff:

1. Russia attacks Italy. The goal is conquest. To avoid this, Italy needs to double its sea forces, approximately, and to equip itself with an air defense system capable of stopping the Russians BEFORE they reach the Alps or the Balkans, double the number of military satellites, if they choose. this road. Let's make the costs of Italy 100, the costs for Russia are about 600 (they have to dramatically increase the naval forces in the Adriatic and build a huge landing force, or plan an invasion through the Alps, or through the Balkans. ). So we are at 100/600. Italy can support 100, Russia only if citizens eat grass, but in the past they have.
2. Italy attacks Russia. There is no will and it would be infeasible. A country with nuclear power is impossible to invade, period.
3. Stalemate between Italy and Russia. In order NOT to go to war. In this case "it is enough" to build a hundred (maybe two, depending on the power) of atomic weapons including AVM, naval vehicles and tactical artigilery. A strong availability of IBCM would not really be needed, as also for France. In this case it quickly goes to a standstill. The cost, if the first scenario was 100, is now 65. Nuclear weapons today are easy for any industrial country to produce. Russia could balance it at no cost, because it already has so many, so we are 65/0.

It is absolutely clear that the third scenario will be the one chosen, (because it is the least expensive) but it is also clear that it will be chosen BY BOTH parties, because it is the least expensive for them too, and if stalemate is the preferred situation, a peace treaty would almost immediately follow. The cost of armed peace would be the lowest: the cost of war as well, but this war produces a stalemate. It is clearly the solution to choose.

The trouble is, building nuclear weapons today is within the reach of any nation with a decent school system and modern industry. The North Koreans have succeeded, the Iranians are coming, the South Africans, who cooperated with the Israelis, Pakistan, and so on have succeeded.

And since NATO no longer exists, and there is no common European defense, we can take it for granted that ALL European ex-born countries would take the same account, and would come to the same conclusions. In a short time Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, Romania and perhaps even the Netherlands, Portugal and Greece would have nuclear weapons. The others would act as a buffer.

This is the nightmare that no one wants to see. Why is this a nightmare? Because no one can figure out who would pull the trigger first, if any. Imagine you are Putin. If you maneuver in Belarus, and everyone has armed themselves with nuclear weapons, you risk that Poland, Sweden and Germany will get nervous. Who will launch? Who will launch first?

If you quarrel with the French, your military means to get to France must first cross other countries. If by sea they would pass in front of the Italian, Turkish, Romanian, Greek spaces. If you go by land, we are talking about Poland, Germany, Italy. If you use a transpolar route, England, Sweden and Germany will be alarmed. But who will launch? And in what order? With whom to negotiate? Who to deal with?

It is absolutely obvious that NO ONE in the world would want such a proliferation. So, if NATO ends (and its demise is imminent) it needs to have something in its place, and that it has ONLY ONE finger on the trigger, that finger has a face, and that it is possible to negotiate with it.

A Europe where there is a nuclear arms race in individual countries is a GLOBAL nightmare. In addition to giving the green light to the programs of many other countries in the world (the rest of the G20 almost certainly), the transformation of many countries into nuclear countries further downsizes the "superpowers".

It is clear that the whole world today wants Europe to speak with its own voice, with one voice, and if the future defense will have nuclear weapons (inherited from France and then developed), to pull the trigger it has to be someone complex, balanced, with whom you can talk.

For example, imagine that several nations, namely Turkey, Poland, Greece and Germany, have nuclear weapons. If you were Putin, how would you move in Ukraine? And on the Baltic? And in Syria?

None of the superpowers wants there to be a nuclear arms race in Europe if it is led by individual countries, each with its own decision-making power.

All the powers in the world want the military situation in Europe to be first and foremost under control. We are in the age of atomic weapons, and too many nations in Europe have technologies, know-how and industries to make them. Even in Italy there are huge thorium deposits, with which to make U232, and all that. And there is certainly the knowledge.

What about internal interests? Clearly no European country wants a similar race with neighbors, but there is more. Eventual European security would not replace national armies. Apart from the fact that they are fine for tenders, if someone is under the illusion that Italy is leaving its navy to someone else, or that any European country does the same, they are wrong.

What would happen is that it would take the old born infrastructure (C4i, fuel pipeline, logistics, etc.) and put it on the European budget. And that means there would be defense money to spend, but it would be European money. Which result in further procurement. Everyone likes them: it means that all the contracts now going from NATO to the US would go from EU defense to industries in European countries.

Ultimately, that is, all interests internal and external to Europe aim to have a unified European defense.

And when all interests converge on something, usually the thing is done.

Obviously, to do this, we also need to corroborate it with a robust “European nationalism”, so if I'm right we will soon begin to see the newspapers banging on something similar.