Making NATO Defunct: Is EU Army Intended to Reduce US Influence in Europe?

• The official reason given for the creation of the EU Army: “To counter the Russian threat!”, is BS! NATO already is playing this role. So why do you need another EU Army?
  –
• The deep divisions between the EU and America is becoming public. The US centric NATO is hell-bent on triggering WW3 with Russia over Ukraine. This is of NO benefit to Europe. It is a genocidally insane plan which will kill hundreds of millions when the nuclear missiles are launched.
  –
• The Europeans want an EU Army that is controlled by them and not the Pentagram/US (which controls NATO). With this announcement of an EU Army, the EU is publicly saying BYE BYE to NATO. The alliance will fracture soon. It is also setting the stage for the collapse of the Eurozone and the arrival of a EU 2.0, a 10 nations federation.
  –
• All of these events are setting the stage for the coming war between the Mystery Babylon Whore/Harlot(America 2.0) and the 10 Horn Beast (EU 2.0):
  –
  Revelation 17:16 New King James Version (NKJV) 
  16 And the ten horns which you saw on[a] the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire.
  –
• Making NATO defunct: Is EU Army intended to reduce US influence in Europe? 
  by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, http://rt.com/
  An EU military force is being justified as protection from Russia, but it may also be a way of reducing US influence as the EU and Germany come to loggerheads with the US and NATO over Ukraine.
  –
  While speaking to the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker announced the time has come for the creation of a unified EU military force. Juncker used rhetoric about “defending the values of the European Union” and nuanced anti-Russian polemics to promote the creation of European army, which would convey a message to Moscow.
  –
  The polemics and arguments for an EU Army may be based around Russia, but the idea is really directed against the US. The underlying story here is the tensions that are developing between the US, on one side, and the EU and Germany, on the other side. This is why Germany reacted enthusiastically to the proposal, putting its support behind a joint EU armed force.
  –
  Previously, the EU military force was seriously mulled over was during the buildup to the illegal Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003 when Germany, France, Belgium, and Luxembourg met to discuss it as an alternative to US-dominated NATO. The idea has been resurrected again under similar circumstances. In 2003, the friction was over the US-led invasion of Iraq. In 2015, it is because of the mounting friction between Germany and the US over the crisis in Ukraine.
  –
  Re-think in Berlin and Paris?
  To understand the events behind the call for a common EU military, we have to look at the events stretching from November 2014 until March 2015. They started when Germany and France began showing signs that they were having second thoughts about the warpath that the US and NATO were taking them down in Ukraine and Eastern Europe.
  –
  Franco-German differences with the US began to emerge after Tony Blinken, US President Barak Obama’s former Deputy National Security Advisor and current Deputy Secretary of State and the number two diplomat at the US Department of State, announced that the Pentagon was going to send arms into Ukraine at a hearing of the US Congress about his nomination, that was held on November 19, 2014. As the Fiscal Times put it, “Washington treated Russia and the Europeans to a one-two punch when it revealed its thinking about arming Ukraine.”
  –
  The Russian Foreign Ministry responded to Blinken by announcing that if the Pentagon poured weapons into Ukraine, Washington would not only seriously escalate the conflict, but it would be a serious signal from the US that will change the dynamics of the conflict inside Ukraine.
  –
  Realizing that things could escalate out of control, the French and German response was to initiate a peace offence through diplomatic talks that would eventually lead to a new ceasefire agreement in Minsk, Belarus under the “Normandy Format” consisting of the representatives of France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine.
  …
  German resentment of US control of NATO
  Back in February, Bloomberg wrote: “For all the alarmist rhetoric about Russian barbarians at the gate, NATO countries are reluctant to put their money where their mouth is. Only the countries closest to Russia’s borders are increasing their military spending this year, while other, bigger ones are making cuts. Regardless of what their leaders say about Vladimir Putin, they don’t seem to believe he’s a real threat to the West.”
  –
  Washington, however, did not give up. When the Franco-German peace offensive began in February, General Philip Breedlove — who is the supreme commander of NATO’s military forces —said in Munich that “I don’t think that we should preclude out of hand the possibility of the military option” in Ukraine. General Breedlove is a US Air Force flag officer who takes his orders from the US government, thus subordinating NATO’s military structure to US command. While Berlin and Paris were trying to deescalate, Washington was upping the ante using Breedlove and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.
  –
  After speaking to the Armed Services Committee of the US House of Representatives, General Breedlove would claim that Russian aggression was increasing in Ukraine. Germany, however, would rebut Breedlove’s statements calling them “dangerous propaganda.”
  –
  read more!

end