offline
- Pridružio: 15 Mar 2020
- Poruke: 54
|
kunktator ::Niko ne komentariše izjave belgijskog NGŠ gde kaže da će EU otezati rat do 2030.
Превод са гугл преводиоца на енглески, пошто не говорим француски а мислим и да је превод тачнији него да га гугл преводи на српски:
Frederik Vansina, Belgian fighter pilot and general, current Chief of the Belgian Armed Forces.
Default image by author
By PHILIPPE REGNIER UGO SANTKIN
Published on 04/17/2026 at 06:20
The Chief of Defense: “Even with the American withdrawal, Putin will not win the war against Europe.” Air Force General Frederik Vansina warns: the period is much more unpredictable and dangerous, “with everyone arming themselves to the teeth.” European strategic autonomy is possible, but within NATO, not the EU. There is still “a lot of work to be done.”
Control of the “third dimension” – airspace –, robotization of warfare, the need for a defense industry capable of replenishing arms stocks, and the computerization of battlefield organization. In the heat of the moment, Air Force General Frederik Vansina draws military lessons from the American-Israeli offensive launched against Iran, which "confirms what we have already seen in Ukraine." On the eve of a videoconference of a coalition of "non-belligerent countries" convened by the Élysée Palace, which could potentially secure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz after the end of hostilities, the Belgian Defense Minister granted Le Soir a lengthy interview. They discussed the ongoing wars, geopolitical tensions, the strained relationship with the American ally, and the challenges facing the country's armed forces.
"I don't want to frighten the population. The Russians aren't going to attack us imminently, anytime soon. But we mustn't kid ourselves: we are going through the most unstable period since the end of the Cold War." “It’s much more unpredictable, dangerous, with everyone arming themselves to the teeth,” warns this former fighter pilot, promoted to the top of the Belgian military hierarchy in the summer of 2024.
There is, of course, this war in the Middle East, which is unfolding on our doorstep. Your French counterpart, Fabien Mandon, just reiterated that the main threat to keep an eye on is Russia, which could launch an offensive in the not-too-distant future. Is this an analysis shared in Belgium?
What is certain is that we must be careful not to overshadow this war in Ukraine with this war in the Middle East. The Iranians have long-range missiles; they did attack Diego Garcia, after all—it’s not exactly next door. It hasn’t reached Brussels yet, but it won’t be long. But I completely agree: our main focus remains the war in Ukraine, which is only a two-and-a-half-hour flight from us. The conflict is currently bogged down, but there are still between 650,000 and 700,000 seasoned Russian soldiers deployed there, with a functioning war economy in Russia that produces military equipment daily, and a Russian narrative that remains belligerent and offensive, calling for a return to the 1997 borders—that is, all of Central Europe outside of NATO. They have just recognized the "People's Republic of Narva" in Estonia. And Vladimir Putin has already publicly stated his ambition to build an army of 1.5 million men. I want to reassure the public: I don't expect a full-scale Russian attack on Belgium tonight, tomorrow, the day after, in a month, or even in a year. But we mustn't kid ourselves. Once this conflict in Ukraine is over, we will need to be strong enough in Europe to deter the Russians. And all of this against the backdrop of our current relationship with the United States. So, more and more responsibility is weighing on our shoulders. By 2030, if we continue on our current trajectory, we will be much stronger than we are today. And by 2035, I believe that this (European) strategic autonomy is achievable, if budgets continue to increase. Unfortunately, the current 2% won't be enough. We still have a lot of work to do. We're making progress, but it takes time. The defense industry also has to do its part. And we're all seeing that this industry in Europe is ramping up far too slowly.
Do you have an explanation for that?
It's always a very economic logic that prevails. "Are we really sure that these governments, who tell us we need to produce a lot, aren't going to stop all orders the day things stop in Ukraine?" The demand is there, but they're still thinking through an industrial lens. How much will it cost me? What is it
What will this bring me? If I produce too quickly, orders will dry up. We don't always get the impression that they are aware of their role in protecting our continent. Then there's the challenge for them of accessing raw materials, labor, and the supply chain. We're no longer talking about just-in-time production from China. It's become much more complicated for these manufacturers as well.
The relationship with our American ally is, let's say, strained. Their decision is to entrust the conventional defense of Europe to the Europeans. What is a reasonable timeframe for their withdrawal without putting us at risk against a belligerent Russia?
2030 is going to be a difficult period for Europe. By then, the war in Ukraine, let's hope, will be over. Russia will still be there with its army of 650,000 to 700,000 seasoned troops. So, in 2030, we must be able to tell Vladimir Putin that, even without the Americans, he will not win the war against Europe. We still have a few years ahead of us. Thanks to the courage and blood of the Ukrainians, who are buying this time for us. That's why we support them so strongly.
So, this US withdrawal of conventional defense in Europe should be controlled and not accelerate before 2030?
It should be controlled so that each time there is a withdrawal of key elements, there is a European capability ready to take over. My American counterpart says it clearly: conventional defense is your responsibility. It's not that we don't like you anymore, but we are obliged to allocate resources (elsewhere), since we have other centers of gravity that, for us, are more important than Europe. And, indeed, we have seen American resources leave Europe, even if it's not a mass exodus.
From Belgium too?
No, nothing concrete at the moment. Today, we haven't received any notification of a troop withdrawal, of any American assets whatsoever, from Belgium, nor, to my knowledge, of any American division withdrawing from Europe, or of American F-35s withdrawing from Lakeneath or Aviano. There was a withdrawal of an American brigade in Romania, but it was a rotating one.
Are you confident that this withdrawal will be coordinated?
That's what we're asking the Americans, within NATO, to give us a withdrawal timetable—which we still haven't received—if there is a withdrawal. I should point out that Congress passed legislation stipulating that the Americans cannot reduce their presence in Europe to less than 70,000 to 80,000 troops. Nevertheless, we sense that there is still a great deal of support for NATO in the United States. For example, you should watch or listen to the last Senate hearing of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, US General Grynkewich). He defends keeping American troops in Europe because, ultimately, it provides access to bases and the possibility of engaging with other territories… Until he gets… fired by Secretary of Defense Hegseth, who has already carried out some “purges”?
So far, that hasn’t happened. Fortunately, because he’s an excellent general.
This European strategic autonomy: do you see it taking shape within the EU or within NATO?
Within NATO!
Why?
Because the structures—I sometimes call them "the glue"—that allow us to operate in a coordinated manner with our land, naval, air, cyber, space, and other assets, this "glue" in command and control, management, and implementation is based on NATO procedures. And if we lose that, we end up with what we see today: in the Eastern Mediterranean, there's a French Carrier Strike Group around the Charles de Gaulle, there are British ships, there are ships from many countries, but they aren't communicating. We almost had a friendly fire incident between a French Rafale from the aircraft carrier and an Israeli aircraft. We had a Kuwaiti aircraft that shot down three American F-15s! This is the result of a lack of command and control and a lack of understanding of what the other side is doing.
So we don't need to start from scratch in the European Union?
No. We just need to replace what the Americans are doing with European capabilities. We can see that Europe is starting to take on more responsibilities. The Americans are talking about NATO 3.0. But I don't believe in that within the European Union because it doesn't have the structures. It wasn't made for that at all. We can see that it struggles to speak with one voice on geopolitical issues. It has a small general staff that allows it to manage a modest non-executive training mission, a small executive mission like Operation Aspides (in the Red Sea). These are small missions. This isn't against Europe, on the contrary, I'm all for it, but it's a reality. A European army isn't for tomorrow.
We have also observed for years the formation of several clusters of enhanced cooperation, for example, between Benelux countries.
This Friday, there is another meeting of this coalition of willing parties, primarily Western Europeans, who are trying to calm the moods of the American president in the event of an end to hostilities in the Gulf, and especially to ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and the surrounding region. The Belgian Prime Minister is participating. From the Defense Ministry's perspective, what is the purpose of this meeting and what will its outcome be?
We see two initiatives in Europe, one French and one from the United Kingdom, to establish a mine-clearing capability in the Strait of Hormuz. We are, of course, following this very closely. We especially hope that these two initiatives will converge. The Defense Ministry has various resources, which we have studied, following a request from the government. We provided this information to our minister, who then communicated it to the government. These include a minehunter, mine-clearing diving teams, and so on. After that, it's obviously a political decision whether or not to deploy them. Our government's position is clear: it will be after a ceasefire, within a European international coalition, with a clear mandate. It must be said that Belgium is recognized as a champion in the fight against mines. But, tomorrow, it remains preparatory.
Мислим да недостају две реченице због форматирања, ко хоће може да погледа оригинал садржај на француском овде
|
