As Russia replaces its combat troops with "peacekeepers" in Georgia, thereby making a mockery of the international "community" and in particular M. Sarkozy who brokered what passes for the withdrawal deal, the commentators are picking over the bones of what is left of the EU’s fabled common foreign policy.

Pre-eminent in this noble task is John O'Sullivan who notes how the conflict in Georgia has brought into focus the stark divisions in the political structure of the world, arguing that it "is really a three-way struggle between authoritarians, national democrats, and global legalists."

View full article here

Without any serious military force and even more importantly the will to use it, the EU will only ever be a Eunach in world affairs, especialy when they get nasty.

It would seem John Palmer is of the preemptive surrendering, bend over grab your ankles and think of Monnet school of diplomacy.
I reckon if the Russians rolled on Christmas or New Years Eve they would be in control of Brussels before the 31st of January.The system is all there for a take over.

There is no EU mandate per se over European military; but lest it is forgotten, we have the vast majority of our professional troops stationed in Germany as in the cold war era. These are under NATO mandate, yet the troops are of course Europeans stationed by consenting nation states.

Its not really a matter of who has a 'mandate' but who has the loyalties of the troops.

It may be the high-water mark, but the Eurocrats and Europols will continue to fight for their Common Foreign Policy. The Swedish FM (euro-federast, what else?) writes on his blog that it is up to the French President (in his position as EU president) to make sure the Russians fulfill their promise to disengage. If the Russians do not comply the French (according to Mr Bildt) has promised to stage an extraordinary meeting for the EU countries' head of states and head of governments. Of course we know that nothing that will have any constructive effect on the present conflict can come of such a meeting, but the meeting as such is of course the main issue for our "masters".

Arguably so, it is a trial perhaps of his conviction regarding EU foreign policy; and of course he is one of the few statesmen that will actually publicly negotiate with the Russians on this issue... Georgia requested that the Chinese would 'apply leverage' on the Russians. Surprisingly the region which doesn't have any real hold on Chinese foreign policy was neglected in favour of media managing their Olympic showcase.

I wonder if they went to the US first...?

The EU (Germany/France) believes that soft power will win over military power. The implications have not been taken on board. The Americans will want to fight for Kosovo, and maybe the Ukraine but the Germans and the French will not. Putin will expose the divisions between the USA and Europeans and break the basis of NATO. Americans might feel they have no choice but to fight on behalf of Germans and French in Afghanistan, but they will be totally non-plussed when they find that Germany won't fight even fight Russians in the Balkans.

I don't think it is entirely a matter of belief. Neither Germany nor France - for their various reasons - are prepared to invest in modern, capable armed forces. Thus, short of any effective military capability, they have little option but to rely on "soft power" - they have nothing else.

In any actual conflict, I agree. But prior to Putin flexing his muscles, they clearly hoped and expected Putin and Russia to join in the 'soft power' game.

Now Putin's started making military moves, the question arises as to at what point will EU countries show Putin sufficiently determined resistance to bring a halt to his occupations. Georgia got no help. Would the Crimea get any if Putin moved in troops there? Would Kosovo even, if Putin's tanks roll that far in a couple of years time?

If NATO decides to fight Russia, where would it fight, and what with?

If Putin thinks he can get away with occupations without any real resistance, he will no doubt press on. It would be far safer if the EU/NATO let him know where the boundaries lie and at what point he can expect to be faced with military consequences, rather than allowing him to keep guessing. If the Ukraine is to be sent to the dogs, what about the Baltics?

NATO depends on air power to win wars. What if the Russian airforce and anti-aircraft missile capabilities are enough to blunt that instrument? The strategic picture would look very different.

NATO should be investing rapidly in enhanced air power, which Putin would know would devastate his forces were they to overstep the mark. But right now Merkel is living in a dreamworld. Sarkozy flies around trying to look impressive but sends troops to (places near to) 'trouble spots' in hundreds and cries over tens of casualties. Gordon Brown flies the white flag continuously over Downing Street. Putin might be forgiven for thinking he can advance with impunity, unafraid of nay coherent response from Europe's pathetic rabble.

My concern is how long will the EU mandarins allow this 'division' to continue? Do we really think they will muddle along from crisis to crisis, unable to respond because they cannot achieve unanimity? Or will they, as I worry, use this as the pretext to impose policy on all member states and acting regardless of the views of those member states?

I've just suddenly noted several things that seem to add up to a pattern...

1. The aforementioned NATO alliance and potential breakup. But the US, the backbone of NATO, is developing a closer relationship with Eastern European nations, some whom are quite keen on becoming members of NATO.
2. That the "Islamic Invasion" and the demographic implosion seem to be happening predominately in Western Europe.
3. Eastern Europe is forging ahead with free market reforms, while Western Europe continues to piddle around with Socialism.
4. Eastern European countries are seeking to invest heavily in military capability, while their Western cousins refuse to.
5. Russia's population implosion and ruinous policies will likely end heartache.

Could it be that we'll see an Inverted Europe, where the East becomes economically and militarily dominant and the West becomes the backwater? Could wealthy Polish businessmen one day be buying up cheap property in Germany for vacation homes?

Gorblimey! Tranche 3 Eurofighters

Gimme, gimme socialism always breaks down into bloated government employment and crippling taxes, due to the intrinsic economic childishness of its proponents. As western Europe climbs back towards economic realism (and everyone wonders who the hell is going to pay for the French farmers) I think it very credible that Russian resources would work through rapidly expanding Eastern European industrial economies to produce an effective economic zone.

Check out the Polish-Lithuanian federation
Which was roughly where we're talking.

Doubt there is a breakup looming unless diplomacy is completely abandoned. Anyway the French have re-joined...

French joining will be the end of the thing - unless they can provide either troops that actually fight, or an air force which stops Russian tanks, and shoots down the Russian Air Fleet.

So we should throw France out and sign up Georgia instead...?