Provoked by Russian advances in Ukraine, can the EU transform from a weak and flabby state of indulgence into a society capable of mass weapons production and powerful military projection?
This is a very pertinent and interesting article – raising questions that very few have addressed, I mean raising as well as providing responses
Especially relevant and never mentioned is the fact that de skilling and de industrialistion is never going to be reversed because of the increased power this would give to native working classes
Even if such re industrialisation and re skilling let alone for purpose long term large scale re capitalisation were possible, which can be doubted
Besides the ruling class would not be able to organise formation of kind of army required, the current executive, military staff and MIC, lack the skills, and would not want to, for fear this army could turn against them
The current bureaucratic bloat is antithetical to the promotion of any notions or acts of efficient management, organisation, or action – and towards the production of the spectacle, as per Guy Debord
There are some elements you omit, I assume for reasons of space, and which I would include – the various EU Commission initiatives to raise money via Eurobonds and via their notorious sustainable finance scheme – the inevitable mix of clashes & support with larger EU countries over both programs
This makes for the conclusion that all war talk in the EU is concerned to frighten the distinct countries’ political/capitalist class into accepting that the EUC /EP is the only forum for any serious financial initiatives, given that everyone is broke
In this instance the threat of confiscation of CBR assets is used by the US against the EU, and by the EUC/EP against their banks and against the EU various Finance Ministers to get them to fall into line
The garrison state would also require disciplined and widespread notions of collectivity nationhood and so on, such as those existent in RF and China, which are anathema to the EUUS ruling class –
You concentrate on the EU, I would include an emphasis on the US, given that although there are significant objective differences in term of strategic necessity, social/economic constructs especially those of the the ruling class, are well aligned, or if you prefer the US has absorbed/created a new EU ruling class along their lines, so doing has reduced the EU working class to exceptional submission
The RF insists, or rather VVP underlines, the importance of research for military technology, conducted online with troops in the battlefield providing feed back and suggestions, to be converted to dual use and civilian production – as per DARPA in the old days –
e.g. The use of cell phone apps to report drones – the Russians who developed this said that the Ukrainians had their own version, but with casino ads inserted and obligatory before the app is activated
Various US reports stated ‘we can do this’ style of civic/popular inventiveness better – it is irrelevant- the Pentagon is/would still be unable to kick start any significant drone program, just as it is unable to buy them from Amazon, or from Jeff’s garage
You do not categorise the RF as a garrison state, partly because it would appear that the civilian government is in control, rather than the military, but also, I guess, due to the deft re suscitation of collectivist/traditional values at the service of the nation in need, with and insitence on a multi-ethnic multipolar global south BRICS etc PR campaigns, civic not military values
PS I would like to work up a comment for the Simplicius post along these lines, I hope you would not have an objection to an incorporation of your ideas, unless I have misunderstood them, in which case please correct me
I would up the role of Guy Debord’s analysis – this is little known in the anglo world, but I believe it to be a or even the key to the current western dilemma
Thanks for all of your commentary. You perfectly understand the points I was making and the addition of Guy Debord's analysis would further demonstrate the gulf between a financialized economy and a garrison state-type of economy based on industrial productivity. I should have included the points about the Eurobonds and national sentiments--I had recently discussed those at the end of this piece: https://www.beyondwasteland.net/p/when-security-queens-panic
I would be super happy if you incorporate any of my ideas into your comment!
Thank you for your reply - I'll see what I can come up with – and please excuse the length and inacurracies of another very long comment – this is an important subject : Jacques Baud has written a geat deal about what works in Russia, but in the west.. nothing
The problem is not with the establishment of the general outline, as you have shown, of the garrison state, which is the apparent or supposed goal of those like Charles Michel, calling for a ‘war economy’
The problem is with a general explanation of determined ruling class inefficiency which has been prevalent recently in USEU, and which has left fragments of defence forces, infrastructure, personnel, as well a mess of confused policies, ways and means
This is the very opposite of a garrison state, and best explained by a version of the Société du spectacle argument –
But this, because Guy Debord is very French, self consciously artificial, it’s not easy to fit into a description of what is now essentially an anglo saxon (NATO) paradigm
I think the argument in the US is that the PMC are ideologues concerned to police proper groupthink – the further the better removed from any productive or material reality therefore : but this is not the explanation given by Debord, which closely correlates with current USEU practice, minor police/terrorist ops concealed behind massive propaganda dramatics which hold the state in stasis
It would seem impossible to get from one to the other, yet unless this is acheived (able) why declare war on Russia and now China ?
The explanation for Guy Michel’s ’war economy‘ speeches is to regard them as parallel to VdL’s Eurobonds for Defence, mere cover for extending EUC control over the EU taxbase & financial industry, but with no military use beyond a more sumptuous MIC, and the launching of permament war
(With regard to Euroclear and the CBR assets – why does nobody mention Clearstream ? which administers a similar amount
The Russians must be waiting with baited breath for the EU to make this CBR confiscation mistake)
As for the garrison state, there must be an object lesson in the many problems the German army has encountered regarding deployment of a 5,000 troop brigade to Lithuania, planned to complete in 2027
From uniforms to volunteers through to the failure of Lithuanian to build adequate infrastructure without re negotiating the agreement (begging) in order to include €300m (?) of German subsidies
Quite apart from the inordinate amount of self congratulation by everyone from Pistorious on down, on this ‘historic decision’, this latest report attributes an inordinate amount of importance to the shipping off of 20 soldiers to be ….well it’s never stated what they will be doing except …something along the lines of defence of democracy
However, according to following quote, the effort, the formation and arming of this brigade will occupy the entire Bundeswehr, personnel and resources for the forseeable
« The Armed Forces Commissioner of the Bundestag, the SPD politician Eva Högl, confirmed this in the ARD morning magazine : "Of course, this creates huge holes at first, because the equipment of our soldiers, but also the large equipment, is not yet available, which means Everything will now go towards Lithuania." »
Given the already lengthy timeline, the well publicised German budget and financial problems, the difficulties met with even the formation of a such a tiny force, it is hard to imagine any transition to Charles Michel’s garrison state war economy
There are glimpses of the state of disarray in the defence and armed forces in other European countries, but I know of no comprehensive overview which would allow a way to estimate how and what NATO could field as an army, logistics personnel and infrastructure, let alone the possibilities of forming a specific EU army
It is hard to see how even a financial case (the very easiest of bureaucratese) could be made for such, as per apparently relevant statements made by Thierry Breton, Georges Michel, VdL and so on, without some sort of practical general policy document – which has never been mentioned (as far as I know)
How could it exist, even – the countries themselves seem to be confused about what they have by way of functioning personnel and armaments, and are unable and unwilling to test political will
As usual it is easy to come up with negative criticism – but when ruling class actions are smothered in so many layers of non truths, appear unrelated to evident facts, concerned only with scoring internal gameshow points, where can one begin to formulate ?
This is a very pertinent and interesting article – raising questions that very few have addressed, I mean raising as well as providing responses
Especially relevant and never mentioned is the fact that de skilling and de industrialistion is never going to be reversed because of the increased power this would give to native working classes
Even if such re industrialisation and re skilling let alone for purpose long term large scale re capitalisation were possible, which can be doubted
Besides the ruling class would not be able to organise formation of kind of army required, the current executive, military staff and MIC, lack the skills, and would not want to, for fear this army could turn against them
The current bureaucratic bloat is antithetical to the promotion of any notions or acts of efficient management, organisation, or action – and towards the production of the spectacle, as per Guy Debord
There are some elements you omit, I assume for reasons of space, and which I would include – the various EU Commission initiatives to raise money via Eurobonds and via their notorious sustainable finance scheme – the inevitable mix of clashes & support with larger EU countries over both programs
This makes for the conclusion that all war talk in the EU is concerned to frighten the distinct countries’ political/capitalist class into accepting that the EUC /EP is the only forum for any serious financial initiatives, given that everyone is broke
In this instance the threat of confiscation of CBR assets is used by the US against the EU, and by the EUC/EP against their banks and against the EU various Finance Ministers to get them to fall into line
The garrison state would also require disciplined and widespread notions of collectivity nationhood and so on, such as those existent in RF and China, which are anathema to the EUUS ruling class –
You concentrate on the EU, I would include an emphasis on the US, given that although there are significant objective differences in term of strategic necessity, social/economic constructs especially those of the the ruling class, are well aligned, or if you prefer the US has absorbed/created a new EU ruling class along their lines, so doing has reduced the EU working class to exceptional submission
The RF insists, or rather VVP underlines, the importance of research for military technology, conducted online with troops in the battlefield providing feed back and suggestions, to be converted to dual use and civilian production – as per DARPA in the old days –
e.g. The use of cell phone apps to report drones – the Russians who developed this said that the Ukrainians had their own version, but with casino ads inserted and obligatory before the app is activated
Various US reports stated ‘we can do this’ style of civic/popular inventiveness better – it is irrelevant- the Pentagon is/would still be unable to kick start any significant drone program, just as it is unable to buy them from Amazon, or from Jeff’s garage
https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2023/12/19/replicator-an-inside-look-at-the-pentagons-ambitious-drone-program/
You do not categorise the RF as a garrison state, partly because it would appear that the civilian government is in control, rather than the military, but also, I guess, due to the deft re suscitation of collectivist/traditional values at the service of the nation in need, with and insitence on a multi-ethnic multipolar global south BRICS etc PR campaigns, civic not military values
PS I would like to work up a comment for the Simplicius post along these lines, I hope you would not have an objection to an incorporation of your ideas, unless I have misunderstood them, in which case please correct me
I would up the role of Guy Debord’s analysis – this is little known in the anglo world, but I believe it to be a or even the key to the current western dilemma
Thanks for all of your commentary. You perfectly understand the points I was making and the addition of Guy Debord's analysis would further demonstrate the gulf between a financialized economy and a garrison state-type of economy based on industrial productivity. I should have included the points about the Eurobonds and national sentiments--I had recently discussed those at the end of this piece: https://www.beyondwasteland.net/p/when-security-queens-panic
I would be super happy if you incorporate any of my ideas into your comment!
Thank you for your reply - I'll see what I can come up with – and please excuse the length and inacurracies of another very long comment – this is an important subject : Jacques Baud has written a geat deal about what works in Russia, but in the west.. nothing
The problem is not with the establishment of the general outline, as you have shown, of the garrison state, which is the apparent or supposed goal of those like Charles Michel, calling for a ‘war economy’
The problem is with a general explanation of determined ruling class inefficiency which has been prevalent recently in USEU, and which has left fragments of defence forces, infrastructure, personnel, as well a mess of confused policies, ways and means
This is the very opposite of a garrison state, and best explained by a version of the Société du spectacle argument –
But this, because Guy Debord is very French, self consciously artificial, it’s not easy to fit into a description of what is now essentially an anglo saxon (NATO) paradigm
I think the argument in the US is that the PMC are ideologues concerned to police proper groupthink – the further the better removed from any productive or material reality therefore : but this is not the explanation given by Debord, which closely correlates with current USEU practice, minor police/terrorist ops concealed behind massive propaganda dramatics which hold the state in stasis
It would seem impossible to get from one to the other, yet unless this is acheived (able) why declare war on Russia and now China ?
The explanation for Guy Michel’s ’war economy‘ speeches is to regard them as parallel to VdL’s Eurobonds for Defence, mere cover for extending EUC control over the EU taxbase & financial industry, but with no military use beyond a more sumptuous MIC, and the launching of permament war
(With regard to Euroclear and the CBR assets – why does nobody mention Clearstream ? which administers a similar amount
The Russians must be waiting with baited breath for the EU to make this CBR confiscation mistake)
As for the garrison state, there must be an object lesson in the many problems the German army has encountered regarding deployment of a 5,000 troop brigade to Lithuania, planned to complete in 2027
‘Outstanding event that fills gaps’ April 8 2024
https://www-tagesschau-de.translate.goog/inland/bundeswehr-litauen-116.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp
From uniforms to volunteers through to the failure of Lithuanian to build adequate infrastructure without re negotiating the agreement (begging) in order to include €300m (?) of German subsidies
Quite apart from the inordinate amount of self congratulation by everyone from Pistorious on down, on this ‘historic decision’, this latest report attributes an inordinate amount of importance to the shipping off of 20 soldiers to be ….well it’s never stated what they will be doing except …something along the lines of defence of democracy
However, according to following quote, the effort, the formation and arming of this brigade will occupy the entire Bundeswehr, personnel and resources for the forseeable
« The Armed Forces Commissioner of the Bundestag, the SPD politician Eva Högl, confirmed this in the ARD morning magazine : "Of course, this creates huge holes at first, because the equipment of our soldiers, but also the large equipment, is not yet available, which means Everything will now go towards Lithuania." »
Given the already lengthy timeline, the well publicised German budget and financial problems, the difficulties met with even the formation of a such a tiny force, it is hard to imagine any transition to Charles Michel’s garrison state war economy
There are glimpses of the state of disarray in the defence and armed forces in other European countries, but I know of no comprehensive overview which would allow a way to estimate how and what NATO could field as an army, logistics personnel and infrastructure, let alone the possibilities of forming a specific EU army
It is hard to see how even a financial case (the very easiest of bureaucratese) could be made for such, as per apparently relevant statements made by Thierry Breton, Georges Michel, VdL and so on, without some sort of practical general policy document – which has never been mentioned (as far as I know)
How could it exist, even – the countries themselves seem to be confused about what they have by way of functioning personnel and armaments, and are unable and unwilling to test political will
As usual it is easy to come up with negative criticism – but when ruling class actions are smothered in so many layers of non truths, appear unrelated to evident facts, concerned only with scoring internal gameshow points, where can one begin to formulate ?
With many thanks
I was going to write how great this article was, but dang, your additional notes are just as good!
Thanks!!
Thank you and for all your comments!