9/22/2014, 1:20 pm
NATO Rapid Reaction Corps "Fast-track" Derailed by European Environment Agency
The creation of a 4,000 to 5,000 troop response force, which will be able to respond to a crisis in eastern Europe within two to three days, was a key decision taken by NATO leaders earlier this month in Wales.
However, the European Environment Agency (EEA) says not so fast. Jock Martin, Head of Integrated Environmental Assessments (IEA), says that the environmental impact of any rapid reaction needs to be fully assessed before any deployment can be authorized.
“War is notoriously damaging to the health of the environment and the quality of life of those who live in and around it” says Martin. “We need to ensure that all future European wars are conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner so as to lessen the impact on fragile ecosystems.”
Martin says that while this may cause some concern for European diplomats, who are frustrated over the delays, due to the environmentally reckless behaviour of unnamed eastern European leaders “combating the inconsiderate lead of tyrants does not justify an environmental catastrophe.”
“What's the point of resisting an invading force if the environment is destroyed in the process?” Martin asks.
Peder Jensen, Head of Governance and Networks (GAN) at EEA, says he fully supports his colleague, Martin. “We need to be certain that the Rapid Reaction force is not an over-reaction to what is, essentially, a political disagreement. We at the EEA intend to show the world how Europe leads the way in environmentally sensitive warfare.”
Paul McAleavey, Head of Air and Climate Change (ACC) at EEA, responded by saying that air quality issues may be a deciding factor in the report to be issued, tentatively scheduled to be released in the summer of 2025. “We need to do a detailed study as to what the impact of countering an invasion will be on air quality. Poisonous gases and nuclear fallout can have serious implications for respiratory health, not to mention all the dust and smoke from conventional weaponry.”
A source within the agency, who declined to be identified for fear of reprisals, said, “There is no irony in the title Head of Air, as irony is 80% iron and therefore environmentally disastrous, due to destructive mining techniques, and, therefore, unacceptable within the agency. We are here to clean up Europe and irony is only an obstacle to that mission.”
When asked for a response to the news from Brussels, Russian President, Vladimir Putin stated, cryptically, “A few petro-dollars go a long way. We can talk about this in Madrid in a year.”
Spanish Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, said he was unaware of any talks scheduled with the Russian President.
AP - BRUSSELS NATO's new rapid-reaction "spearhead" force, meant as a deterrent to Russian aggression, should be up and running with initial capabilities in less than a year, a top alliance official said Thursday.
The creation of a 4,000 to 5,000 troop response force, which will be able to respond to a crisis in eastern Europe within two to three days, was a key decision taken by NATO leaders earlier this month in Wales.
However, the European Environment Agency (EEA) says not so fast. Jock Martin, Head of Integrated Environmental Assessments (IEA), says that the environmental impact of any rapid reaction needs to be fully assessed before any deployment can be authorized.
“War is notoriously damaging to the health of the environment and the quality of life of those who live in and around it” says Martin. “We need to ensure that all future European wars are conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner so as to lessen the impact on fragile ecosystems.”
Martin says that while this may cause some concern for European diplomats, who are frustrated over the delays, due to the environmentally reckless behaviour of unnamed eastern European leaders “combating the inconsiderate lead of tyrants does not justify an environmental catastrophe.”
“What's the point of resisting an invading force if the environment is destroyed in the process?” Martin asks.
Peder Jensen, Head of Governance and Networks (GAN) at EEA, says he fully supports his colleague, Martin. “We need to be certain that the Rapid Reaction force is not an over-reaction to what is, essentially, a political disagreement. We at the EEA intend to show the world how Europe leads the way in environmentally sensitive warfare.”
Paul McAleavey, Head of Air and Climate Change (ACC) at EEA, responded by saying that air quality issues may be a deciding factor in the report to be issued, tentatively scheduled to be released in the summer of 2025. “We need to do a detailed study as to what the impact of countering an invasion will be on air quality. Poisonous gases and nuclear fallout can have serious implications for respiratory health, not to mention all the dust and smoke from conventional weaponry.”
A source within the agency, who declined to be identified for fear of reprisals, said, “There is no irony in the title Head of Air, as irony is 80% iron and therefore environmentally disastrous, due to destructive mining techniques, and, therefore, unacceptable within the agency. We are here to clean up Europe and irony is only an obstacle to that mission.”
When asked for a response to the news from Brussels, Russian President, Vladimir Putin stated, cryptically, “A few petro-dollars go a long way. We can talk about this in Madrid in a year.”
Spanish Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, said he was unaware of any talks scheduled with the Russian President.