George Bush’S Great America [EN]: Chapter 249

< 248 >

The war, initially expected to be swift, has dragged on longer than anticipated. The conflict, which in an alternate timeline concluded in four days, has already extended to a month.

“Why is it taking so long?”

The Chief of Staff, interpreting the question as a query about Russia’s deliberate prolongation of the war, cautiously offered his assessment.

“The Second Korean War and the Afghan War were unique situations. Typically, conflicts unfold like this.”

His point was clear. The Afghan War was framed from the outset as a subjugation operation, employing overwhelming force and superior technology. The Second Korean War was, frankly, barely a war at all.

In fact, the countries involved were hesitant to even label the Second Korean War as such. Instead, they faced the ‘problem of having to use force in the process of annexation.’ Or, through historical revisionism, they euphemistically termed it ‘the Communist Party requested assistance to quell rebels,’ avoiding the term ‘war’ in official discourse.

The current administration, largely continuing the foreign policy of its predecessor, aimed to portray the conflict as a peaceful reunification. Nevertheless, the scale of military deployment and the numerous clashes with insurgents made it, at best, a civil war.

“And while we lack official confirmation, intelligence suggests that Europe may be covertly bolstering their efforts,” he added.

“Europe? Why?”

Bush was genuinely surprised. The notion of European support seemed improbable. While Georgia had eagerly cooperated with the EU when U.S. involvement appeared unlikely, it was a far cry from the EU, as a collective, offering full-fledged support to Georgia, even at a national level.

Even without EU assistance, it wouldn’t necessarily constitute a betrayal. Georgia, an unapproved country, had preemptively attacked a nation in a military alliance with Russia, so it would be fortunate if it didn’t receive official criticism.

‘What’s different from the original South Ossetia War?’

Numerous factors. Firstly, Georgia’s military strength in this conflict surpassed that of the original South Ossetia War. The reason for Georgia’s swift surrender in just four days back then was the deployment of its modernized army, its main fighting force, in Iraq.

The situation in Iraq at that time needs no further explanation. That main force was currently engaged in combat against the Russian army within Georgia. While its training and equipment were European-style rather than American-style, European standards were by no means inferior.

‘But even with that… Is the Russian army really struggling to that extent?’

Russia was once a military power on par with the United States. Even diminished, it remained a tiger with some teeth intact. It wasn’t entirely defanged, and even without teeth, it could still lash out with its claws. It was astonishing that Russia was still struggling to subdue that small territory, and that Georgia hadn’t yet surrendered.

‘Then there must have been a shift in the EU’s stance, leading them to support Georgia.’

Finland and Sweden, witnessing Russia’s struggles even with the high price of oil, openly discussed military reductions, concluding that Russia’s prospects were bleak and expressing their intent to join NATO.

As NATO began to project its influence directly and indirectly into the Middle East, starting with the accession of western Iraq, requests for accession or consideration were springing up here and there in the Middle East. Turkey was even willing to cede territory to maintain NATO and join the EU.

Already, NATO was emerging in Europe not just as a military alliance that divided the two camps during the Cold War, but as a new logic. The difference from the original history was that NATO member states were fully wielding their power.

Two are stronger than one, and unity is strength, and division is weakness. It was a truth that everyone from a one-year-old child to an old man on the verge of death knew, but it was natural to hesitate because you had to give up some of your rights to unite.

But what if the benefits of giving up far outweighed the rights you were giving up? If you could ride the tide of those who dominate the world, albeit imperfectly, and become a ruler, what couldn’t you do?

‘To summarize. The EU is willing to risk being criticized and is trying to increase its size by taking advantage of this momentum?’

Whether Georgia was occupied by Russia or not was irrelevant. The EU wasn’t concerned with immediate victory or defeat. Their aim must have been to carve off as much of Russia’s influence as possible.

‘There wasn’t much talk in the UK. Is it completely under German leadership? Or maybe it’s France.’

Since the EU doesn’t operate completely independently, all sorts of stories were going on underground. The reality of the EU as an organization was a place to represent the interests of each country. It didn’t matter if the representation here meant representing shit. There were so many trivial opinions that you could trip over them.

The problem here was that the EU’s policy had been decided, which meant that a majority of countries actually understood that this support for Georgia was in their own interests, whether large or small, and had reached an agreement.

“Is the EU’s army getting bigger?”

“While drawing resources from the EU, member states are also increasing troop training within their own borders. Their tank inventories have noticeably increased, and there are initiatives to design new tanks, such as the Eurofighter.”

Drawing from their experiences in the Middle East, they were striving to create a truly integrated army, not just in name.

“Furthermore, regarding the Eurofighter I mentioned, there are efforts to increase the number of variants and somehow integrate them. In addition to tanks, individual weapons are also planned. However, as long as ammunition types are unified, supply shouldn’t be an issue, and since it’s not urgent, it seems that the priority is being pushed back compared to tanks.”

“Derivatives?”

The Eurofighter’s biggest flaw was its attempt to accommodate every country’s demands, resulting in a compromise that excelled at nothing. In gaming terms, it was a mediocre ‘jack-of-all-trades.’ Now, they were attempting to specialize in derivatives tailored to each country’s specific needs while standardizing military supplies.

And although they’re calling it a derivative, the reality is that they’re probably designing and building a completely new fighter. They’re just putting the name Eurofighter on it. This way, they could definitely build a proper fighter.

“Is every country participating?”

“Yes, that’s right.”

If the Chief of Staff’s words were true, there was one thing for sure.

“Then Rafale is really going to die.”

“Yes, that’s right. Unless France operates two aircraft at the same time.”

Or they could modify the design of the Rafale, fix its shortcomings, and disguise it as a Eurofighter. The goal of unifying the weapon system was important, above all else.

Europe was forgetting its history of division and trying to be reborn as a true whole once again.

“But it’s not that big of a threat.”

“That’s right. It’s still not a threat. And as the army grows, there are side effects. Isn’t this something we know best?”

Everyone knew the extent of U.S. defense spending, and that this investment equated to unparalleled military power. However, few understood the full range of possibilities afforded by such vast resources.

In other words, as the army grows, development in all areas is delayed little by little. Of course, that doesn’t mean that weapons themselves are useless. The United States alone is wielding its powerful force with that army and taking whatever it wants, right? Even in the economic sector, there was a brief period when the belief that bullets would not fall on the American mainland led to linear development.

Therefore, increasing the army is not necessarily directly linked to hindering development. However, this is only the case when it pays off. If it doesn’t pay off, even a powerful military force is meaningless. For example, North Korea. North Korea clearly had one of the largest military forces in the world, but as the economy that supported it collapsed, it came to have an inflated army.

In modern times, it’s not for nothing that people say that the guy with a lot of money wins when a war breaks out. Of course, this is not absolute either. Isn’t there the case of the Vietnam War right away? Anyway, in a universal total war, it was true that the side with a superior economy and a large army won.

Returning to the story of development, as the army grew larger day by day, development would be hindered in many ways throughout the EU. Therefore, if the EU were to emerge as a proper threat, it would have to be at least a hundred years from now. Unless the United States collapses due to a major blunder along the way. If it maintains a moderate level as it does now, Pax Americana [American Peace, a period of relative peace dominated by the US] will never be broken.

“We’re having a hard time, so what can they do? Still, we’ll be able to solve the burden-sharing problem.”

Every time the Pentagon said that the United States was responsible for 50% of the burden-sharing in NATO, they complained about how to deal with this. They unintentionally solved it. By increasing the army in the EU. It was like picking your nose without touching it.

“So, assuming that Europe is secretly supporting Georgia. Haven’t you been able to figure out the scale and method?”

“There have been a few scenes of artificial satellites supporting weapons. But that’s definitely not enough. Intelligence has just started moving, so nothing has been revealed.”

“It’s difficult. The Middle East is being stimulated by this war. Are you thinking of suppressing it and securing legitimacy by demonstrating with force instead?”

I thought maybe that was the case.

“Then what is the impact on us, the United States, as a result of this war continuing?”

“Well. Right now, it’s just that the price of Georgian goods is rising? In the long run, it will be disadvantageous to us.”

“Is it a disadvantage even though Russia is suffering?”

“That’s also true, but it’s because the world peace that the President is promoting will be in a bad shape.”

Certainly, when I recalled that the reason why Bush was doing his best to prevent civil war in the Middle East was the outbreak of ‘civil war’ beyond the Middle East, the prolonged South Ossetia War was truly terrible.

“I can’t help it. I have to let them know that peace is a better solution than force.”

“If they knew that, wouldn’t they have already done it?”

If the Chief of Staff’s words were an ultimate question about the concept of war and peace itself, Bush’s words were a little different. Rather than looking far away like the Chief of Staff, he wanted to avoid this moment right now. He wanted to suppress the fire that could spread into a bigger war and division in advance.

“We have to mediate between Georgia and South Ossetia.”

To be exact, it would be right to say that he was mediating between Russia and the EU.