You’re already bored. And this is the EU’s real problem, which the new EU chief, Josep Borrell will struggle with. EU foreign policy is deeply boring, largely because it is based on a series of fantasies held together by eurocrats and rank federalists that the EU has a policy in the first place. And is going to exercise it.

Yet why would you employ someone so lightweight as ‘Moggie’ in the first place, if the EU were serious about its delusional views about being an international player? In five years of travelling the world and shaking sweaty hands with its despots, Mogherini is not going to be burdened with embarrassing accolades, or statutes built for her achievements as, even die hard, grovelling euro hacks in Brussels, who are happy to be spoon fed their news every day by EU propagandists, struggle to even write a single article itemising what she has pulled off. Naddah.

In fact, it’s worse than that and Borrell, a man remembered for being the European parliament president who sent droves of MEPs to sleep when he spoke, will be only too aware that this job comes with one overriding handicap: it’s fake.

The best kept secret in Europe is that the EU foreign policy chief is not meant to actually achieve anything on the foreign policy circuit, expect oversee the rampant distribution of billions of euros of taxpayers money to African dictators, who are happy to have those huge signs erected which read “this road was build with the assistance of….” in exchange for the EU to look the other way while they enjoy an afternoon’s genocide. You get the idea.

And you can blame the Brits. We started this clever little trick of sending to Brussels Catherine Ashton (a Tony Blair crony) to take up the job as the first ever EU foreign policy chief (after the Lisbon Treaty unveiled its new bold frontiers of taking on the world. Oh yes it did). And Ashton, a woman so remarkably gifted at being so ungifted did a brilliant job at doing nothing and achieving zero. That was the idea. That is what the nefarious plan was which suited both London and the EU. It was almost as though the EU bosses met with David Cameron in smoke filled rooms and said “we need someone instantly forgettable, who can’t even tie their own shoe laces, has no public speaking skills whatsoever and is as thick as two short planks” and Cameron replied “for the new job of foreign policy supremo? I’ve got just the person from the Labour back benches!”.

And so the tradition continued with Mogherini who has taken uselessness to a whole new level. In the Middle East, Netanyahu pissed over her, with their relationship reaching a whole new level when just recently she asked if he was in Israel on a certain week to meet her, and he replied “naaagghh” without even offering an alternative date. This came after years of Moggie making herself look stupid and ineffectual on just about everything from illegal settlers, to Palestinians’ rights not to be bombed cos the IDF was bored one day, right through to really important stuff like stickers on shit made in Israel. Or the occupied bit. Whatever.

But wait. There was more. In Syria Mogherini really, really, really wanted to be relevant. Really. Years passed though with no one taking her pathetic attempts at conflict resolution seriously before she could take it no more and threw the ‘i’m about to go mental’ switch when no one would take her calls and journalists in the region never actually got around to doing those high profile long hand pieces about her. Our Moggie, bless her, came up with a master plan. The EU, stop laughing, is going to buy off both sides of the war in Syria. Oh yes it is. We have lorry loads of cash and jihadists and Assad are welcome to it for a lifetime of jollies in Dubai and your chicks for free. Hell, we’ll even let you take it to Cyprus and buy EU citizenship if you agree to leave your baby ‘Klash’ or M4 behind. Maybe it was the fine tuning. But it just didn’t come off in the end. Perhaps the boffins in Brussels were worried that both sides might just use the cash on cocaine and Lebanese whores in super nightclubs in Jounieh and order more weapons from Uncle Sam. Details.

Undeterred, she was going to make her mark in Syria. And there was only one thing left to fix the war and show the world what the EU really was. A conference in Brussels with all the key players was to be organised, which would be called, wait for it, The Syria Conference. A conference! With people talking about Syria! And journalists, who had been especially shipped in from 25 meters across the road camped in Kittie Oshea’s Irish pub, facing the new shiny European Commission. Amazing.

But never mind. There are more wars to fund, er, sorry i mean find, surely?

Much could be achieved in Libya. It had all the markings of low hanging fruit and the EU could do great work there. A problem with a murdered dictator, who we all miss as he did all the dirty laundry for Blair and Sarkozy – from funding their re election campaigns to fixing Lockerbie and new energy deals – and a raging war which Brussels could either fix, back (both sides?), or provide assistance in the form of humanitarian aid, right? We’re good to go. So what’s the plan Mogherini? British gun boats should, under a UN mandate, be positioned off the Libyan coast and blow out of the water any trafficking vessels which try to leave for milk and honey Europe. I’m not making this stuff up. This was an idea Mogherini offered as a solution to the “refugee problem”. Murdering them. Dead Africans can’t lodge cases in the European Court of Human rights, or do Euronews soundbites, right?

But faster than you could say ‘Amnesty International press release’ annoyingly, a number of Africa experts during her tenure wrote studies which actually proved that the flow of Africa immigrants to Libya – where they were habitually robbed, raped and made slaves – actually came as a direct result as the EU propping up some of the most brutal dictators in modern history in Sub Saharan Africa with ‘restructuring aid’. The exodus from these countries has grown in recent years as has, indeed, the amount of cash being shovelled their way to despots like the President of Central African Republic who received a staggering…what for it…TWO BILLION euros following a conference in Brussels in 2016 which Moggie chaired.

So that’s two billion for the new government which took power in a bloody coup, which it needs to rebuild the country. The one it destroyed. Yep, you’re keeping up. Good.

But Libya, which is in many ways a product of failed western policy, is in the middle of a brutal war, backed by a number of international players, which shifted gear recently because of EU foreign policy. Or lack of it. Another one of Moggie’s failures is not being able to unite the EU on Libya. Hesitating from when her own office gave the green light for EU member states to cultivate their own ideas and policies, now we have the mother of all nightmares as Russia takes advantage of the vacuum – repeating more or less the same move from Syria where Obama’s red lines only produced red faces when his gutless policies imploded – and is showing the whole world what EU foreign policy really is: a bad idea. Like giving military aid to Al Shabab.

EU member states have entirely opposing views about who to back – the expired yet UN-backed President in Tripoli who is really nothing more than a terrorists’ puppet but has the support of Italy (as well as terror group Muslim Brotherhood and its backers Qatar) verses Macron’s man Haftar, who has the backing of the US, Egypt and the UAE, not to mention now Russia. It must be very confusing for Mogherini, especially being Italian.

The Iran Deal. If we are to believe the amusing anecdotes about Mogherini being so excited about it in 2015 that she squabbled with Catherine Ashton when the latter insisted on turning up to the inauguration photo shoot – as Mogherini claimed to be the big shot who pulled it off – then by the same logic is it not a failure of hers as well? A new EU payment mechanism which allows western companies to trade and even buy oil in Iran, bypassing the US banking system? And how are these firms supposed to operate? In secret like intel agencies? Hardly surprising it’s a flop, like everything that Moggi put her mark on, it turned to dust. The anecdote which haunts her is actually the one about John Kerry flying to Paris after getting the green light from Iran that they’re ready to sign – and in his excitement, after sharing the news with both the French and British foreign ministers, it’s believed that he forgot to call Mogherini in Brussels. The Iran Deal. The one which didn’t have provisions in it in case one major player backed out, which was designed to stop the Iranians developing weapons-grade uranium? If it has an EU flag on it, and Moggie’s daft smiling face, then it’s going to do exactly the opposite of what it was intended for. Today, Iran is developing uranium.

And how haunting Mogherini is her cover up of EU aid money going amiss in Lebanon, which despite preposterous letters defaming the journalist who uncovered the scam after a one year investigation, refuses to go away, with a new group of MEPs in the parliament baying for her blood. Mogherini’s ducking and diving to weave her way out of the scandal is out in the open now and something close to 100 million dollars in total of waste management projects – which scientists in Lebanon link to the rise in cancer rates – can no longer be swept under the carpet.

The list of scandals, fuckups and hilarious anecdotes of Mogherini is endless. It really does just go on and on and is a stark reminder of the level of feral experimentation the EU is prepared to go to, to cling on to this idea that it is a big player. But surely, those who herald this lame idea are weary of the Carl Marx comment about not wanting to be a member of a club which would have him as a member. If the EU was really serious about foreign policy it wouldn’t give this post to such under achievers. And now it is taking this idea even further. Now it is giving ‘jobs for the boys’ in its mind set as, post brexit, it has a new challenge: to make the EU a much bigger, relevant player in the world with an EU army and a much bigger budget. This utterly delusional idea is not contested by a number of eurosceptic countries as, I would argue, they are playing the same game that Cameron was playing by sending a buffoon to Brussels in the first place. Borrell is not an achiever. What we have learnt from Britain exiting the EU on January 31^st is that the euro elite in Brussels has not learnt the lessons of Maastricht nor Lisbon treaties which both gave the EU more power, but in the process made Britain less relevant and more a peripheral member. The EU’s answer to Brexit is to centralise power even more and to plough ahead and make Lisbon a working example, rather than just creating 130 ‘missions’ in many of the world’s hotspots. Even when you look at how Borrell was appointed, it doesn’t bode well.

Mogherini’s appointment came about through a corrupt and murky deal struck between the political blocks in the European parliament who wanted a socialist from a Mediterranean county. The tradition remains as Borrell is a carbon copy, but the 72 year old is also one of the MEPs themselves. He’s one of them. And although outspoken on Russia, a supporter of Iran and a Trump basher he redefines the word ‘lightweight’ in this area. The EU press hounds will make little of his insider trading scandal as Brussels is a Mecca of bent politicians taking advantage of its immunity laws anyway. Curb your enthusiasm. He’s going to be Europe’s grumpy old man whose rants amount to nothing accept the ridicule of Trump and further proof that the EU is afraid of its own shadow in the area of foreign policy.

The UK, which is scheduled to leave the EU in 2019, is not part of PESCO. Until Brexit, London had opposed the idea of European Defense Union or European Army, saying it would undermine NATO and the UK alliance with the US. Denmark, which has a special opt-out status, is not expected to participate. Ireland, Portugal and Malta are still undecided whether or not to join.

This is the first time ever EU member states legally bind themselves into joint projects as well as pledging to increase defense spending and contribute to rapid deployment. Member countries will submit an action plan outlining their defense aims. EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, EU military chiefs and the European Defence Agency will evaluate whether the plans agreed on are being respected. Those not living up to their commitments could be kicked out of the group.

PESCO is intended to reduce the number of different weapons systems in Europe and to promote regional military integration. It is also intended to establish joint training of military officers. The jointly developed European military capabilities will enable the EU to conduct operations separately or in coordination with NATO. Formally, the North Atlantic Alliance backs the project, aiming to benefit from stronger militaries.

Federica Mogherini called the deal a “historic moment in European defense.” According to her, PESCO is complimentary to NATO, in which 22 of the EU’s 28 countries are members. The EU, she said, has tools to fight hybrid warfare — the use of conventional weapons mixed with things like propaganda and cyber-attacks — that the military alliance does not have at its disposal. German Foreign Minister Gabriel praised the agreement as “a great step toward self-sufficiency and strengthening the European Union’s security and defense policy — really a milestone in European development.”

Under PESCO, EU countries will commit to increase military spending. The pact is to be backed by a 5-billion-euro defense fund for buying weapons, a special fund to finance operations and money from the EU’s common budget for defense research. Joint efforts will reduce duplication and waste. More than 50 joint projects in the fields of defense capabilities and military operations have already been submitted. The UK and other states, which have not become parties to PESCO, can take part in some if they are of benefit to the entire EU.

The European Commission also proposed on Nov.10 a series of measures often called a “military Schengen” to facilitate the movement of forces and defense equipment between member states. The moves dovetail with the goals set by the EU strategy document titled European Union Global Strategy that the bloc should look to create greater military autonomy from NATO. «As Europeans we must take greater responsibility for our security. We must be ready and able to deter, respond to and protect ourselves against external threats», the paper reads.

An independent EU military capability will weaken NATO and put an end to Europe’s dependence on the United States. Sweden and Finland, EU members outside NATO, might find an EU alliance preferable to the North Atlantic alliance. After all, European states got entangled in the military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan due to solidarity with the United States, not because the European interests were involved. These two examples alone are enough to give precedence to European, rather than transatlantic, security interests. Quite often these interests do not coincide. Today, a joint border force to keep away refugee flows, not forces deployed to counter Russia, is the real priority for Europeans.

The US views Europe’s migrants’ crisis as a far-flung problem that doesn’t affect its direct interests. It has other priorities, such as containing China and opposing Iran, the country where European businesses have great economic interests. Many common Americans question the need to pay for European «free riders». They strongly believe that the Europeans should do much more to enhance their own security. It’s only natural that the EU, a powerful international entity with 28 members accounting for more than 20% of global GDP, strives to acquire the capability to conduct independent military operations.

The idea of creating an independent European defense potential has its pros and cons but one thing is indisputable – only a truly European force – not an assortment of national armies operating under the auspices of US-led NATO – can really protect European interests. Europe has just made a big stride towards moving away from the reliance on the United States to its greater independence and ability to set its own priorities.

«We have the political space today to do things that were not really doable in previous years», Ms. Mogherini told EU ambassadors on September 5.

A timetable for the plan will be discussed at a meeting of 27 EU leaders – excluding British PM Theresa May – at a summit in Bratislava on September 16. According to her, the plan to create a military structures able «to act autonomously» from NATO and the USA is the EU’s best chance to relaunch itself after Brexit.

London has always strongly opposed the idea. With the UK out, the European Commission, France, Germany, Italy and countries in Central Europe see new prospects for the project.

The military plan foresees countries such as France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland creating permanent military structures to act on behalf of the EU and for the deployment of the EU’s battle groups and 18 national battalions. It could also comprise an EU military planning and operations headquarters in Brussels that could be a rival to NATO.

The EU already has joint defence capabilities in the form of 1,500-strong battle groups, but they have not been tested in combat yet.

The drive to create a joint European army appears to be gaining momentum with the Czech Republic and Hungary both speaking out in favor of deeper defense ties on the continent in moves which are likely to rile NATO. «We should list the issue of security as a priority, and we should start setting up a common European army», Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban told a news conference after a meeting between Central European member states and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Warsaw on August 26.

Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka also called for discussion to start on the issue. He says it is a priority due to the need to secure Europe’s borders and respond to growing security threats from places such as the Middle East, adding, «we should also begin a discussion about creating a common European army». At the same time, Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydlo called for setting up a European border guard to protect the Union’s external borders. The Czech, Hungarian, Polish and Slovak leaders are coordinating their foreign policy within the framework of the Visegrad Group.

Chancellor Merkel supported the idea of increasing security across the bloc.

The concept of European military has also been backed by Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, a European leader pushing for more defence co-operation.

Last year European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker called for a European Army. The proposal was supported in Germany, where Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen told Deutschlandfunk radio that a «European army is the future». Mr. Juncker will elaborate on the issue in his «State of the Union» address to the European Parliament in Strasbourg on September 14 – just two days before he presents his proposals to the leaders of the 27 remaining EU countries at a special post-Brexit summit in Bratislava. The European Commission President wants a unified command for EU military operations, common investment for military hardware, and standardized military equipment for all member states.

Under discussion is the establishment of «permanent structured co-operation» that would allow member states that wish to embark on military co-ordination to do so without being vetoed by objecting countries. The proposals include «joint civilian military planning and conduct capability» — code for a permanent operational headquarters for the day-to-day command of operations. This would provide central support to EU military missions, replacing the national headquarters on which the bloc currently relies.

The plan includes joint investment projects so national defence forces could develop major projects together, cutting costs. One suggestion is that such a scheme could be used to co-fund the development of air-to-air refuelling capacity for member states. Another suggestion is that participating member states would agree to binding EU targets for military coordination. The main defence and security measures are drawn from a paper developed by Federica Mogherini, EU foreign policy chief, and presented to European foreign ministers at informal talks on September 2-3 in Bratislava.

In July, the EU strategy document titled European Union Global Strategy stated that the bloc should look to create greater military autonomy from NATO.

 «As Europeans we must take greater responsibility for our security. We must be ready and able to deter, respond to and protect ourselves against external threats», reads the paper prepared by the EU foreign policy chief.

NATO officials have expressed concerns that the proposals will create rivalry and challenge the alliance’s primacy as the main defence structure. An EU independent capability to carry out its own military operations will greatly weaken NATO and put an end to Europe’s dependence on the United States.

If the idea is endorsed on September 16, arrangements could allow Norway, a NATO member outside the EU, to contribute, while Sweden and Finland, EU members outside NATO, might find an EU alliance preferable to one that crosses the Atlantic. The European states got entangled in the military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan due to solidarity with the United States, not because the European interests were involved.

These two examples alone are enough to give precedence to European, rather than transatlantic, security interests. Quite often these interests do not coincide. 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.

Today, the EU needs a joint border force to tackle the migrants’ crisis. This is an issue of paramount importance for Europe, unlike the plans to deploy NATO battalions in Eastern Europe and the Baltics to challenge Russia and, thus, undermine the European security. As Europeans, Russia and the EU have more common interests in the field of security, while the US has its own list of foreign policy priorities.

The Russian Federation and the European Union conducted joint operations in Chad and the Central African Republic and coordinated efforts fighting Somalian pirates. It brings to mind the statement made by Frederica Mogherini last year in Riga, Latvia, when she told reporters that the EU will pursue a realistic approach with Moscow and will not be pushed or pulled by anyone into a confrontational relationship with Russia.

The idea to create an EU military is being floated at the time the US is pushing Europe to do much more to strengthen its own security. President Obama has called the Europeans «free riders». Donald Trump, the GOP presidential candidate, has openly questioned the need for NATO. Anyway, the US government has stated that the «pivot» to Asia, not Europe, tops its foreign policy priorities list. It has other threats to fend off.

The goals may not coincide. Does it serve the interests of European states to get involved in the South China Sea conflict if the US meddles in? Absolutely not. In its turn, the US views the Europe’s migrants’ crisis as a far-flung problem that doesn’t affect its direct interests. It would prefer to see the money spent on European border guards to be allocated to NATO needs instead. Around 4.5 million refugees have fled the Syrian civil war. The US has taken in only around 3,000.

Under the circumstances, the transformation of NATO’s European arm into an EU defence structure is a logical step in the right direction. Only a European force – not an assortment of national armies operating under the auspices of US-led NATO – can really defend European interests. No matter what exactly decisions will be taken at the Bratislava meeting, the recent events leave no doubt that the European Union’s new defense strategy is a bid to increase inter-EU security cooperation, and strengthen the EU’s ability to achieve independence from the US-dominated NATO alliance. This is an indisputable fact to put in question the relevance of the North American Alliance. It also happens at the time Europe rejects the US-imposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

A trend is shaping with Europe gradually moving away from the reliance on the US to become more independent and able to set its own priorities.