Europeans Want Own Weapons.

Well, at least this is what they state. 

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union governments gave the green light on Tuesday for 13 new defence projects in a step to develop more firepower independently of the United States. Under plans agreed by EU defence ministers in Brussels, work will begin on a new patrol vessel, an electronic jamming weapon for aircraft and technology to track ballistic missiles. The projects took months to negotiate but French President Emmanuel Macron underlined the desire for deeper EU defence collaboration last week when he said the U.S.-led NATO defence alliance was dying. Some 47 joint EU defence projects are now in the works following the signing of a pact by France, Germany and 23 other EU governments in late 2017 to fund, develop and deploy armed forces following Britain's decision to quit the bloc. Any new weapons on land, at sea or in the air and cyberspace can be put at NATO's disposal, but U.S. President Donald Trump's questioning of the alliance's significance has added impetus to European defence efforts.Macron has expressed doubt about NATO's security maxim that an attack on one ally is an attack on all. But many European allies reject his portrayal of NATO, which will hold a summit in London on Dec. 4, as brain dead. 

Looks like Macron made some decision personally, this one maybe out of personal conviction even. This fact:

European defence planning, operations and weapons development foresee France taking a big role in 60% of the 47 projects, often with Germany, Italy and Spain.

Speaks volumes. But while France may have some technological, by far not all, expertise to realize at least some of those programs the underlying issue remains--it may be too late for Europe. If to follow Macron's today statement at Paris Peace Forum:

In his opening speech, Macron advocated for multilateralism and a “balanced cooperation” between the nations. In an apparent reference to President Donald Trump’s foreign policy, Macron said that the temptation of unilateralism is “very risky.” “We tried that option in the past: it leads to war,” Macron said. “Nationalism is war.” Climate change, demographic issues, migration, conflicts, terrorism and the fight against poverty were among topics at the forum, which runs through Wednesday.

One has to seriously question, granted it being a traditional political fodder in Europe, such "priorities" as climate change (the way Europeans want to deal with it--which is DOA), if "nationalism" is truly a real danger? I think President of France should be better situationally aware than your average Joe, or Jacques, for that matter, to not know that the so called "nationalism" was merely a response to a degenerate, culturally and economically, globalization. People simply fell back to their roots. One has to when seeing sodomy, pedophilia and Islamization flourishing in Europe. You know, like Poles today, or Russians who guard their children from European "progressive" so called "values".  

Trump is surely correct in one thing, granted this thing is built on a false premise, that Europeans were a free loaders and riders against Soviet/Russian "Threat". Not that the US didn't profit from it, pardon, I mean few American corporations, but Trump's logic is sound--how about Europe paying for her safety from those nasty Russkies, who, as we all are aware, sleep and dream of attacking Europe for some mysterious reasons. But, in the end, it is between Europe and the United States. Macron wanted to put a mantle of a mediator between Russia and combined West, but I don't think it is a serious attempt nor do Macron or France have enough weight to mediate anything. Russians just want Europe to buy their gas, which Europeans are hell bent on doing so, and that is good enough for Russia. Russia has a much bigger business to attend with China and there are some issues to be solved because for all her massive economy China also has some serious energy and military issues, especially if to consider the bat-shit crazy US political Parnassus, which may decide in the end to block China on SLOCs. United States would love to "pull" the war with China into the high seas where mighty US Navy can interrupt the flow of resources to China. But Europeans wanting own weapons is, certainly, a symptom, a late one, but important nonetheless. 

Meanwhile, Power of Siberia is getting ready, and now there is a very compelling school of though out there which thinks that during 2014 negotiations between Russia and China on this strategic gas-pipe issue, it was Chinese side which was more interested in the project, not actually Russia. But no matter now, it is ready and so be it. New ones are also in plans because China will need Russia's energy badly. That is unless the United States itself doesn't implode so badly that it will be, indeed, forced to live only by effectively regional aspirations, if that. But that is a separate issue altogether.  

P.S. Because people may ask due to rumors spread by all kinds of BS Artists from various US media sewers I forestall it--I don't see why Russia needed to "test" S-500 in Syria. This whole "story" reeks of yet another BS, especially related to F-35 damage control in US (and Israeli) media. I call it a BS.