Post photo: Allee | © Shutterstock
Table of Contents
Hungary and Poland, two of the EU member states that have been plaguing other countries since 2004 — for 15 years now — and making no positive contribution to our community, are currently babbling about wanting to leave this "machine of oppression".
This can be understood insofar as the EU has not only renovated the infrastructure of these countries with billions in subsidies, but also their industries as well as health and social systems.
And since the Hungarians as well as the Poles were very successfully fooled into believing that these are all national achievements, which would be even greater if the "European regimentation appart" did not exist at all, it is not surprising that many of these people from a HUXIT or dream of POXIT — a functioning “Land of Cockaigne socialism” where everyone lies lazily on their skin while the “damned democratic capitalists” continue to feed and drink them.
Now that not only a large number of Poles and Hungarians have taken a liking to such a POXIT or HUXIT, but also that the remaining EU states would very much welcome them, the responsible Polish and Hungarian politicians are now making a sharp U-turn.
The new motto of these beneficiary states: We will remain in the EU, but now we can redesign it according to our wishes and ideas. Politics can't get any more pathetic!
The old saying comes to mind here: "Whose bread I eat, whose song I sing." But also this: "The girl who can't dance complains about the band."
Contrary to the recent claim of many responsible politicians, the EU has had its own emergency services for years, which are explicitly able to secure airports, such as the one in Kabul, for at least 30 days.
The problem with these EU forces is this: all affected states must agree in advance to such an operation. And if they do, also deliver the promised capacities, including the necessary soldiers.
Since there are more loudmouths than responsible parties in the EU, the "militaries" concerned not only have to ask the governments involved in advance whether they want such an operation, but also whether they can actually fulfill their obligations.
If not, then all EU states would probably have to declare today that they only conclude treaties in order not to comply with them.
One must not confuse armament with arms trading, because this serves one's own pursuit of profit. Armament is, on the other hand, a responsible and sustainable safeguarding of the equipment of our own and allied armed forces.
Due to the complexity and cost of today's defense projects, it is imperative that there be a concerted effort to develop, manufacture, maintain and repair. Anything else is irresponsible.
Here it is a good idea for the alliance to produce all armaments together. The essential and indispensable advantage of this is that you will also be able to obtain sufficient replacements for destroyed or damaged armaments as well as ammunition supplies in the event of a war.
Against this background, it is only natural that Australia - especially in view of an increasing threat - opts for submarines that may even be better, but in any case are produced in larger quantities and can also be replaced more quickly in the event of a conflict.
The meanwhile "European way" of producing weapons in "manufactures" and in homeopathic quantities is not only completely overpriced, but also extremely dangerous and deadly in the event of a conflict!
Only companies, arms dealers and totalitarian regimes - the corresponding customers - benefit from this; presumably also the politicians involved.