EU dilemma, NATO or new EU Army.

 END OF NATO AS WE HAVE KNOWN IT?

CAN EU FORM EU ARMY FINANCIALLY AND POLITICALLY?

Since the inception of NATO in 1949 the European nations have been subjected to little risk by being NATO members. they have enjoyed the perceived security of a common defense that was primarily provided by the United States. It has allowed them to engage in many social programs like national healthcare and a 32 hour workweek. While they have offered token military assistance to U.S. power projection around the world, it has been a very slight inconvenience to their domestic prosperity.

This all changed with the U.S. operation Ukraine project. The EU, with little consideration of the consequences signed on to this project that has now required a far bigger commitment than at any time since the formation of NATO.  

The perceived weak Russia, that was expected to submit to the threat of alienation from the west was far more committed to resisting NATO expansion than they understood. If they had just listened to Russia and understood the history of this region, as those a generation before them would have plainly understood, they may have taken a different direction.

But they did not, lulled into a delusional belief in the wisdom of U.S. intelligence and a seemly situation with little risk, they are now at a crossroads with no good outcome.

There is growing concern that the U.S. population is rejecting the U.S. policy of eternal war, and regime change projects around the world. This and the inevitability of U.S. financial irresponsibility and future ability to finance a near $ Trillion defense budget is making it apparent that they may have to start thinking for themselves both militarily and most importantly politically.

There is growing pressure to increase their defense spending in NATO. This was offered by Donald Trump before this Ukraine project worsened. Now, they seem to fear that if Trump is re-elected they may not be able to count on the U.S. being the major financier of NATO. The reality is, that U.S. is soon facing its own financial limitations.

The other problem with NATO is, since all members have conveyed their former Soviet era weapons to Ukraine and much of their other obsolete weapons, they will need to replace these weapons. The U.S. is pushing for NATO weapons to be all uniform in their usability. The idea is that all of NATO's new weapons will be U.S. designed and the majority U.S. manufactured. This is going to be resisted by the financial implications to EU arms makers and their own domestic manufacturers.

That leaves the option of the EU forming its own military apparatus, maybe part of NATO, but independent of U.S. dominance.  While this is being pushed by some members, it will require a major investment in new weapons and then political problems of who will be in charge, Germans, French, or Poles etc.. That in itself will be a very interesting scene to witness.

So much about the future, when at present they have the dilemma of sending EU troops, not NATO, into Ukraine with all the political ramifications both domestically and the Russian response. That and the realization that Ukraine will not be a NATO member and maybe not even a viable country in the future. The repercussion of the EU signing on to the U.S.'s Ukraine project will be felt for decades.