Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
We abolished the death penalty before we joined the EEC/EU
We had trade unions before we joined the EEC/EU
Women had the right to vote before we joined the EEC/EU
Kids stopped working down coal mines before we joined the EEC/EU
and so on and so on
There's a definite theme going on here
The British people have a better sense of right and wrong than a lot of people give them credit for.
I would highlight this rather amusing comedy sketch on the ECHR when people start complaining about it. The daft thing is the UK wrote the ECHR in the majority, but now we want to write it all over again (I suspect May thinks it was all a mistake and it's too stringent on Government)
I was being sarcastic about fake news. For a long time, EU defenders have dismissed the idea that the EU is interested in a defence force or heaven forbid, and army.
Recent speeches from Macron and Juncker, plus that article, make a mockery of the claims of EU supporters, hence my use of the fake news approach.
No we haven't. It's always been "we don't see the issue". And as have pointed out many times before Wrexit or no Wrexit the UK is still committed to provide forces to the 'dreaded EU army'.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/11/13 19:07:45
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
The proposition of an EU army is another of those points which you either regard as the ultimate horror of the world, or a good idea in outline, which needs some working out.
I don't think it needs to be either inherently. What tends to make it controversial is what it logically contributes as a massive, absolutely huge step towards, which is EU statehood. There are only three pillars which define who controls a nation really, the judiciary, the army, and the taxman. The EU has strong influence over the judiciary as things stand, and is strongly pushing for fiscal control right now (a logical response to the Euro issues, it was a silly idea without fiscal unity; which is likely why they did it in this order). If that succeeds, and the EU takes control of the military?
Well, that's it. Game over for anyone who opposes the United States of Europe. The last pillar knocked over. People's reactions are consequently more to do with the ramifications of the EU army than the EU army itself. That's the equivalent of the birthing cry of Slaanesh for those who oppose it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/13 23:32:04
Ketara wrote: I don't think it needs to be either inherently. What tends to make it controversial is what it logically contributes as a massive, absolutely huge step towards, which is EU statehood. There are only three pillars which define who controls a nation really, the judiciary, the army, and the taxman. The EU has strong influence over the judiciary as things stand, and is strongly pushing for fiscal control right now (a logical response to the Euro issues, it was a silly idea without fiscal unity; which is likely why they did it in this order). If that succeeds, and the EU takes control of the military?
If that happens, the EU has a military joint command to do stuff the individual EU armies have to do but cannot. A power independent (but complementary) to the needs of NATO, which are those of the USA.
But it looks like some people genuinelly believe the UK is getting off the train in time before art. 50 is abolished entirely. Good for you I guess.
Ketara wrote: I don't think it needs to be either inherently. What tends to make it controversial is what it logically contributes as a massive, absolutely huge step towards, which is EU statehood. There are only three pillars which define who controls a nation really, the judiciary, the army, and the taxman. The EU has strong influence over the judiciary as things stand, and is strongly pushing for fiscal control right now (a logical response to the Euro issues, it was a silly idea without fiscal unity; which is likely why they did it in this order). If that succeeds, and the EU takes control of the military?
If that happens, the EU has a military joint command to do stuff the individual EU armies have to do but cannot. A power independent (but complementary) to the needs of NATO, which are those of the USA.
But it looks like some people genuinelly believe the UK is getting off the train in time before art. 50 is abolished entirely. Good for you I guess.
Perhaps, or there is the possibility of a large European Army keeping everyone in check, problems in Catalonia? Don't worry, send in the Eastern Legions! They don't give a monkeys.
Now, if only we could properly deal with those pesky barbarians across the Rhine and the Danube.....
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
Ketara wrote: I don't think it needs to be either inherently. What tends to make it controversial is what it logically contributes as a massive, absolutely huge step towards, which is EU statehood. There are only three pillars which define who controls a nation really, the judiciary, the army, and the taxman. The EU has strong influence over the judiciary as things stand, and is strongly pushing for fiscal control right now (a logical response to the Euro issues, it was a silly idea without fiscal unity; which is likely why they did it in this order). If that succeeds, and the EU takes control of the military?
If that happens, the EU has a military joint command to do stuff the individual EU armies have to do but cannot. A power independent (but complementary) to the needs of NATO, which are those of the USA.
But it looks like some people genuinelly believe the UK is getting off the train in time before art. 50 is abolished entirely. Good for you I guess.
Perhaps, or there is the possibility of a large European Army keeping everyone in check, problems in Catalonia? Don't worry, send in the Eastern Legions! They don't give a monkeys.
The first misconception is that there will be a European army as such. Just like in NATO or in the different force-sharing agreements the UK has with France, the Netherlands, Norway, etc. there won't be a 1st Luxembourg Fusiliers "Jean-Claude Juncker" regt made out of recruits from all over Europe.
Each country will supply their own units, rotating them. Big expensive things will be pooled and shared (like NATO now does with AWACS or big transport aircraft) there will be an integrated command (like NATO does) and possibly, only possibly, France will put their nuclear deterrent under the EU command.
The 2% NATO doctrine doesn't work because 2% small individual budgets buy a lot less efficiently than 2% of a common pool, and efficiency is the name of the game right now.
But if the UK thinks it can go alone, by all means.
Kilkrazy wrote: The proposition of an EU army is another of those points which you either regard as the ultimate horror of the world, or a good idea in outline, which needs some working out.
I still vividly remember the EU's blundering and ineptitude in Ukraine, so thank God they didn't have the military option as a Plan B!
Ketara wrote: I don't think it needs to be either inherently. What tends to make it controversial is what it logically contributes as a massive, absolutely huge step towards, which is EU statehood. There are only three pillars which define who controls a nation really, the judiciary, the army, and the taxman. The EU has strong influence over the judiciary as things stand, and is strongly pushing for fiscal control right now (a logical response to the Euro issues, it was a silly idea without fiscal unity; which is likely why they did it in this order). If that succeeds, and the EU takes control of the military?
If that happens, the EU has a military joint command to do stuff the individual EU armies have to do but cannot. A power independent (but complementary) to the needs of NATO, which are those of the USA.
But it looks like some people genuinelly believe the UK is getting off the train in time before art. 50 is abolished entirely. Good for you I guess.
It sounds like a lot of unnecessary duplication and bureaucracy, but the EU loves paperwork, so I'm not surprised they support this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: I thought Cameron said an EU army wasn’t going to happen, it was on one of the live TV debates.
Only Brexit supporters get held to account with their statements.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/14 10:46:53
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Fewer Britons will die from the cold under climate change, study suggests
" in northern Europe hot weather mortality will be cancelled out by the decrease in cold weather deaths."
.... *hot-take joke*
Although the current 2,000 excess annual summer deaths are expected to rise between seven and five-fold, they would be cancelled out by the fall in winter mortality, suggesting hundreds of lives would be spared.
Can't wait for their piece about how terrorist attacks are actually good as it means there's less queues at airports and cheaper holidays in certain locations.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
It sounds like a lot of unnecessary duplication and bureaucracy, but the EU loves paperwork, so I'm not surprised they support this.
You know, it takes a special kind of Don Quixote to argue that making a structure so that the militaries of the member states are coordinating with each other would lead to unnecessary duplication. The entire point is that it's much more efficient to have the countries cooperate so that not everyone has to buy, for instance, minesweeping equipment. It cuts down on redundancy and unnecessary duplication, and yet here you are complaining that it'll lead to increased unnecessary duplication.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/14 11:18:15
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
The argument would be that NATO already performs this function, and unless you're literally integrating the militaries of various countries, we already have a structure set up and in place to co-ordinate defence strategy and resources. Therefore instituting anything short of actual military integration is simply a duplication of NATO and a waste of time or money.
I would personally be inclined to agree with that viewpoint. NATO has this aspect of affairs firmly in hand. There is no serious justification or need for an EU military structure unless you intend to use it as a step towards EU statehood. It's not like an EU border force, where there is at least some grounds for it. I think it can be reasonably asserted that the entire purpose of the EU army project is to attempt to wean European defence policy away from the Americans and into an asset more easily controlled by the EU.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/14 11:55:23
You do realize that not all members in the European Union are NATO members, yes?
Besides, if it's about moving military decision-making from the US to the EU isn't that protecting the sovereignty of the EU's member states by bringing military decision-making under their communal control rather than under that of an outside entity?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/14 12:37:18
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You do realize that not all members in the European Union are NATO members, yes?
Besides, if it's about moving military decision-making from the US to the EU isn't that protecting the sovereignty of the EU's member states by bringing military decision-making under their communal control rather than under that of an outside entity?
I'm not sure moving military planning from one supranational entity to another one really counts as 'protecting Sovereignty' by anyone's definition, or indeed counts as anyone's motivation. That's like leaving the EU so you can join the USA 'to protect sovereignty', y'know?
Plus, if we're going to be serious and not reflexively attacking anything perceived as anti-EU here for a minute, we all know that the reason behind the formation of an EU army isn't for Sweden, Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland and Malta (the countries in the EU but not NATO)'s benefit. Sweden and Austria already co-operate with NATO under the table, Finland is actively planning on joining, Malta is effectively under British protection, and Ireland really doesn't care, on account of the fact that it's an island and nobody will invade it any time soon. I don't know about Cyprus, but if you're going to tell me we're going to duplicate NATO within the EU for the benefit of Cyprus, that'll be the stage this conversation will lose all point.
The EU army is a state building project. Pure and simple. Love it or hate it. It has no military need or justification whilst NATO exists.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You do realize that not all members in the European Union are NATO members, yes?
Besides, if it's about moving military decision-making from the US to the EU isn't that protecting the sovereignty of the EU's member states by bringing military decision-making under their communal control rather than under that of an outside entity?
That is exactly the point. Here is an interesting politico take on it.
When it comes to big European partners the UK doesn't seem to object to just toe the Washington line, Germany is still somehow under post-war guilt about the whole defence business and France has always seen NATO for what it is, a vehicle for USA interests.
However, Trump has shown that now, more than ever, USA interests may not necessarily align with those of Europe down the road. EU or no EU, Europe as a whole needs to start pulling its own weight in the defence camp. That means serious money of the kind the modern Western electorate doesn't want to commit to, so the answer is spending better (and if that also means some jobs so much better).
This is the most relevant quote of the article:
German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel stressed it would have economic benefits. He said Europe spends 50 percent as much as the United States on defense yet only has 15 percent of its military efficiency.
You can make a pretty decent military force out of 50% of the USA defence spending, but there has to be some planning to it or you end up with a ragtag assortment of bits and bobs. NATO has shown it can work.
The NATO AWACS force has 16 aircraft, operated by crews and support staff from 14 nations. There's no way a single nation could afford this capacity, it is a very evident case of economies of scale and was repeated successfully with the transport fleet.
It's funny how fast the idea of 'commonality of nations' and 'bringing us all together' seems to vanish the minute the Americans get involved.
You talk about 'toeing the Washington line', but what line is that? Anyone can invoke NATO, but the pledge just says that you give 'support', it's entirely open-ended as to what that comprises. Iraq was a perfectly good example as to how NATO is easily flexible enough to allow any European states who disagree with American foreign policy to duck out, and those who don't to join in (whether part of NATO officially or not)
The fact remains, there is (at present) absolutely no pressing military or domestic political need for the vast disruptive organisational shift and financial expenditure required to start building an EU army. It's purely an EU state building exercise.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/11/14 13:12:12
Ketara wrote: It's funny how fast the idea of 'commonality of nations' and 'bringing us all together' seems to vanish the minute the Americans get involved.
You mean just like do not take my sovereignty away unless it's uncle sam calling?
There IS a pressing political need to have a plan B from Washington. It's called Donald Trump and it may or may not leave in 3 years, but it's changed the political landscape for good.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/14 13:23:01
You mean just like do not take my sovereignty away unless it's uncle sam calling?
I don't understand this comment. Could you explain what you're saying (or joking/implying) in detail for me?
There IS a pressing political need to have a plan B from Washington. It's called Donald Trump and it may or may not leave in 3 years, but it's changed the political landscape for good.
So....the argument that we need to reform a defence alliance that's been in existence for 50 years, worked really very well, and institute a different one at greater financial cost which excludes the most militarily powerful member....is that a member got someone elected you don't like? Despite the fact that nothing bad has actually happened through NATO as a result?
God forbid, what do you do when someone gets elected in charge of the EU you don't like??? Do you set up another defence alliance which blockades Brussels? Or do you think that the European nations are so much more advanced and special than America that it could never happen over here?
Not to mention, isn't the whole idea against the principles of the EU? Isn't dialogue and co-operation the entire sodding point of multinational projects? As opposed to immediately breaking them in two because someone not on your political side of the spectrum got involved? And Trump, of all people, is the tipping point? I mean, you've got Erdogan enacting reforms in Turkey that would make Ceausescu break into a jig, but it's Donald Trump, the man who can't even get am immigration reform through without being struck down, that motivates you to break up NATO? Jesus Christ.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/14 13:37:07
I'll tread carefully here, because we don't want to turn this into an American politics thread, but the rational from the EU seems to be that because the USA elected one bad POTUS, then they'll keep electing more bad POTUS' in the future, so we can't rely on the US for defence, despite the evidence to the contrary i.e more American troops and equipment heading back to Europe.
You'll note that there was never talk of an EU army when Obama sat in 1600 Pennsylvania.
The EU was all over Obama like a bad rash. If anything, the Europeans loved him more than the Americans did
The Ukraine debacle showed us that the EU shouldn't be trusted to watch over a dead parrot, never mind a standing army!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/14 13:36:29
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Ketara wrote: It's funny how fast the idea of 'commonality of nations' and 'bringing us all together' seems to vanish the minute the Americans get involved.
You mean just like do not take my sovereignty away unless it's uncle sam calling?
There IS a pressing political need to have a plan B from Washington. It's called Donald Trump and it may or may not leave in 3 years, but it's changed the political landscape for good.
NATO does not take our soveriengty away. NATO is purely a military alliance.
The EU is a political union. The two are not equivalent in any way and pretending they are is disingenuous.
It sounds like a lot of unnecessary duplication and bureaucracy, but the EU loves paperwork, so I'm not surprised they support this.
You know, it takes a special kind of Don Quixote to argue that making a structure so that the militaries of the member states are coordinating with each other would lead to unnecessary duplication. The entire point is that it's much more efficient to have the countries cooperate so that not everyone has to buy, for instance, minesweeping equipment. It cuts down on redundancy and unnecessary duplication, and yet here you are complaining that it'll lead to increased unnecessary duplication.
Shifting the goalposts here. One minute EU supporters claim there was never going to be any kind of European defence force, now it's all for economic efficiency in defence spending.
If you want economic efficiency, I suggest you head to EUHQ and get them to stop wasting money on red tape, pet projects, and largesse at the taxpayers' expense!
As always with the EU, stealth is their watchword.
They'll scream from the rooftops that an EU army is not happening, then when you turn your back, it gets smuggled in by the back door and becomes a fait accompli before anybody knows what is happening.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/14 13:42:08
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
It sounds like a lot of unnecessary duplication and bureaucracy, but the EU loves paperwork, so I'm not surprised they support this.
You know, it takes a special kind of Don Quixote to argue that making a structure so that the militaries of the member states are coordinating with each other would lead to unnecessary duplication. The entire point is that it's much more efficient to have the countries cooperate so that not everyone has to buy, for instance, minesweeping equipment. It cuts down on redundancy and unnecessary duplication, and yet here you are complaining that it'll lead to increased unnecessary duplication.
Shifting the goalposts here. One minute EU supporters claim there was never going to be any kind of European defence force, now it's all for economic efficiency in defence spending.
Now who's shifting the goalposts? I've never said there'd be a European defence force, I'm saying that this is a project to coordinate the existing armies into a more efficient group of militaries to enable them to work together. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Plus, you didn't answer my question, so stop deflecting while you're at it.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
I'm saying that this is a project to coordinate the existing armies into a more efficient group of militaries
We have NATO for that, as It's been pointed out many a time.
As with anything involving the EU, it's a slippery slope.
As I've said before, the EU reminds me a lot of the USA in Vietnam.
You go from a few hundred advisors, and before you know it, there's 250,000 men there, and US air force bombers over Hanoi!
Mission creep...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
When it comes to big European partners the UK doesn't seem to object to just toe the Washington line, Germany is still somehow under post-war guilt about the whole defence business and France has always seen NATO for what it is, a vehicle for USA interests.
In the same way as the EU has always been a vehicle for French interests - see CAP, a second uneeded parliment building in France paid for by EU taxpayers, and pretty much any decision the EU has made - the odd ones they don't agree with which are rare - they ignore.
NATO protected Europe during the Cold War - but sadly allowed many nations to run down their own military at the expense of those who did keep up the spending despite treaty obligations saying otherwise but I guess those "Club rules" donlt matter.
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Ahh, more reactionary nonsense.
You know, when in Europe, we have a veto on these things.
If it happens, it's now gonna happen without us. And when we inevitably come back begging to be let back in, we'll have to sign up to that too.
Nice one, Brexiteers. You really based you decision based on the facts. And certainly not nonsensical scare mongering
Do you feel better now you've coughed up that vague/generalised diatribe? I do hope so, it'd have a point then.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Now who's shifting the goalposts? I've never said there'd be a European defence force, I'm saying that this is a project to coordinate the existing armies into a more efficient group of militaries to enable them to work together. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Sorry, how is setting up what will effectively be an identical intranational defence alliance, minus america, be more efficient? One would think that:
a) any efficiencies that could be made in an EU defence force could easily be made in a NATO one; changing to a completely different organisation is utterly excessive as a response, and
b) ditching the military that provides most of the heavy lifting power and funding would, if anything, be a total and utterly backwards step when considering the military aspect of 'efficiency'.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/11/14 14:00:34
It sounds like a lot of unnecessary duplication and bureaucracy, but the EU loves paperwork, so I'm not surprised they support this.
You know, it takes a special kind of Don Quixote to argue that making a structure so that the militaries of the member states are coordinating with each other would lead to unnecessary duplication. The entire point is that it's much more efficient to have the countries cooperate so that not everyone has to buy, for instance, minesweeping equipment. It cuts down on redundancy and unnecessary duplication, and yet here you are complaining that it'll lead to increased unnecessary duplication.
Shifting the goalposts here. One minute EU supporters claim there was never going to be any kind of European defence force, now it's all for economic efficiency in defence spending.
Now who's shifting the goalposts? I've never said there'd be a European defence force, I'm saying that this is a project to coordinate the existing armies into a more efficient group of militaries to enable them to work together. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Semantics. This is a De Facto "European Defence Force". Once this precursor is established, it'll be one step away from being a De Jure EU Army.
This is how the EU operates, incrementally. And as such, knowing the end goal (EU Army and EU Statehood), I oppose this increment no matter how innocuous you pretend it to be.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/14 14:01:02
It sounds like a lot of unnecessary duplication and bureaucracy, but the EU loves paperwork, so I'm not surprised they support this.
You know, it takes a special kind of Don Quixote to argue that making a structure so that the militaries of the member states are coordinating with each other would lead to unnecessary duplication. The entire point is that it's much more efficient to have the countries cooperate so that not everyone has to buy, for instance, minesweeping equipment. It cuts down on redundancy and unnecessary duplication, and yet here you are complaining that it'll lead to increased unnecessary duplication.
Shifting the goalposts here. One minute EU supporters claim there was never going to be any kind of European defence force, now it's all for economic efficiency in defence spending.
Now who's shifting the goalposts? I've never said there'd be a European defence force, I'm saying that this is a project to coordinate the existing armies into a more efficient group of militaries to enable them to work together. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Semantics. This is a De Facto "European Defence Force". Once this precursor is established, it'll be one step away from being a De Jure EU Army.
Semantics matter, though. The military would be under the command of the various member states. Or is NATO an American Defence Force?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Macron and Juncker, the President of France, and the President of the European Commission respectively, and not some random people down the pub, are the one's talking about a EU defence force, so we can safely say that idea is been taking seriously by key players in the EU.
The EU, and its supporters rational for an EU army seems to boil down to three points:
1. Donald Trump. This is despite the fact that Trump has not done ANYTHING to alter the structure of NATO or withdraw the USA from it. Trump talked about NATO members pulling their weight, and predictably, the Germans got upset about it.
2. Fiscal efficiency and an end to waste. And yet, the EU's proposals would duplicate existing structures.
3. Putin. Again, we have NATO for that. The Baltic states can sleep easy.
If you watch fox news, and read Conservative American newspapers as I do (I read pretty much anything these days left-wing or right-wing) then you'll know that prominent US right-wing commentators loathe and mistrust Putin. The idea that these people would say nothing if Putin invaded a NATO member is risible nonsense.
The USA is in NATO for the long haul. The EU is only interested in usurping power in the name of 'European community.'
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
NATO is purely a military alliance.
