What Do the Germans Think? Solana's New ESS

It's quite interesting what you can find out if you search for keywords in other languages. One language I have been doing this with is German. A couple interesting things popped up.


http://www.hans-peter-bartels.de/solana-papier-fuer-mogherinis-neue-eu-sicherheitsstrategie/

Hans Peter Bartels Giving Solana Paper to Mogherini

at Interparliamentary Conference

Here, one of the Task Force members is giving the "Solana Paper" to Mogherini, at the Interpaliamentary conference in Riga on defence. The title of the page says: 

Solana-Papier für Mogherinis neue EU-Sicherheitsstrategie

Translation: Solana Paper for Mogherinis new EU security strategy 

The interparliementary conference is a meeting of lots of officials from various countries on the matters of defence. 

One of the "side events" at this conference was a presentation by Hans Peter Bartels of Solana's plan for a European Defence Union. Here is the text of that speech. 

http://www.hans-peter-bartels.de/fuer-eine-europaeische-verteidigungsunion/

Some interesting things in there. First, he is quite blunt. Second, he proposes something the Solana paper does not: an EU defence commissioner. In addition, he very forcefully advocates for an EU military headquarters and a Council of Defence Ministers configuration. 

He says the following at the end of his speech (which he gave in English):

Sixthly: We need a new European Security Strategy, which will have to address all these issues. In restrained diplomatic language, of course. The ESS of 2003 was a milestone because it established Europe’s commitment to multilateralism against the Bush-doctrine of that time and America’s commitment to unilateralism

So lets make a new EU security strategy, addressing all the issues in Solana's plan. And lets make sure its in "restrained diplomatic language" so the public doesn't get too worried about it. Concerning....and not very transparent.

Go here and see the conclusions of the Interparliamentary Conference in Riga. The conclusions involve many of the same ideas that Solana agrees with 

What do the newspapers say? Here is what Euractiv.de says:

http://www.euractiv.de/sections/eu-aussenpolitik/juncker-fordert-europaeischee-armee-gegen-russland-312718

The former EU High Representative and NATO Secretary General Javier Solana will present the results of an international expert group in Brussels on Monday. Recommended therefore is a new European security strategy, a "political and military ability to conduct autonomous intervention operations outside the borders of Europe" and the establishment of a military EU headquarters in Brussels. (Google Translate)

The German newspaper Die Welt agrees with this characterization:

Must feel vindicated Juncker also by former EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and NATO Secretary General. The Spaniard is on Monday in Brussels the results of an international group of experts. The developed in six months paper ("More Union in European Defence") recommends a new European security strategy, a "political and military ability to conduct autonomous intervention operations outside the borders of Europe" and the establishment of a military EU headquarters in Brussels. (Google translate)

Newspapers sometimes borrow articles and wording from each other, as it seems to be the case here. But its interesting they say that Solana is proposing a "new European security strategy" since he was the one who made the original, and now they are calling for a revision. This could be a mere matter of semantics, since that is, in fact, what the Solana Report really is. It is a strategy about security, hence a "security strategy." But it seems Hans Peter Bartels, who was on the Solana task force, views it as a recommendation to Mogherini for her new European Security strategy. This new ESS is supposed to be in the works, but has not been unveiled yet.

Germany is backing the plan for an integrated armed forces, apparently the Solana plan. They will begin integrating some of their own troops under Dutch command, to show their commitment to armed forces integration. This is not something that must be unanimously agreed upon. The Solana plan recommends the use of "Permanent Structured Cooperation," which is kind of like the Eurozone, in that only those who agree to it move forward with it. In fact the paper proposes a "defence group" (i.e. like the "Eurogroup"). But instead of finance ministers, it proposes it be a Council of Defence Ministers , which can meet in PESCO format (i.e. only the willing participants).

In another article by Blockmans, who technically authored the Solana report, he spells it out and proposes a "Eurogroup of Defence Ministers." (Careful going to that article (i have not linked to it). It might have a virus, perhaps unbeknownst to the website owners. If you go searching for it, use the wayback machine to get an image of the site.)

The Eurogroup has very little accountability in its activities. Nor does one have to already be a finance minister to become its president. (The last president was not even finance minister when the previous one, Jean Claude Juncker, stepped down). He was only finance minister for a month when nominated. They are considering alternatives, some of whom aren't even currently finance minister.

Which makes it very interesting that Solana doesn't propose one chair for this new PESCO Steering Group, but two chairs, one of whom is the High Representative:

Who will fill the other chair?

This paper, by two PSC members in 2008, propose a very similar strategy that the Solana plan does. In this academic work, they state this interesting fact:

One could argue that the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty codify, in some ways, the current practice. In theory, the CFSP High Representative presently has no right of initiative and he/she can only speak “on behalf of the Council at the request of the Presidency”. In practice, however, Javier Solana often leads the Troika at international meetings and conferences; he meets or speaks daily with foreign officials; he regularly issues statements, which are perceived by the outside world as reflecting the Union’s position, even when he has not been thus requested by the Presidency; he submits to the Council, either on his own or in cooperation with the Commission, several papers containing ideas and recommendations on the course of action that the Union could follow on specific issues; and he sits at the negotiating table with third parties on highly sensitive issues, mandated by the Council (actually, in the case of the Iranian nuclear program, not just by the EU, but also the US, China and Russia).

The ENP was launched with a letter from Solana and Patten. The European Security Strategy (2003) was a paper by Solana called "A Secure Europe in a Better World." Granted, both of these came at the request of the European council. The Solana paper (2015) is meant to have a policy impact on the European Council, similar to the Delors Report did for monetary integration. While not specifically requested by the European Council, it is clearly a response to the 2013 European Council, with view to the June 2015 European Council, which reviews the progress of defence activities.

In reality, I should stop blogging and speculating and just wait until the June Summit, which everything seems to be pointing too. But I don't want us to wait that long and be disappointed. We have been disappointed by too many EU summits. Pray God gives us wisdom on prophecy.

Come Lord Jesus!!!!! He can't come soon enough.

German Defence Minister Apparently Pushes for Solana Plan

This article is related to Solana. To see why I think Solana is possibly the Antichrist, CLICK HERE.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3066687/Our-goal-EU-army-says-Germany-s-defence-chief-Fears-country-commission-chief-s-call-force-taken-seriously-world-stage.html

This is just a quick update. But I wanted you all to know.

The German defence minister yet again publicly announced her support of the European army. However, it goes farther. Excerpt from the Daily Mail:

‘The European Army is our long-term goal’ she said ‘but first we have to strengthen the European Defence Union.’

 The United States also wants us Europeans as a powerful force within NATO.’
‘To achieve this, some nations with concrete military cooperation must come to the fore - and the Germans and the Dutch are doing this.’ 

‘The Ebola crisis alone, or the attack of ISIS on the Yazidi has shown that Europe must be more flexible and have faster access anywhere in the world in the event of a crisis.
‘Well-rehearsed structures within a European Defence Union could help to shorten coordination processes and speed up the help that is needed.’ 

She added: ‘All over Europe we will need to invest more if our alliances can reliably take responsibility.’ 

She insisted such a project remained a long-term goal and would ‘probably only be something that my children would experience.’

"European Defence Union" is not a massively common term to be using. It's been used before, back in articles from like 1998 (and a handful recently). But that exact phrase isn't thrown about very often.

....but...if you Google "European Defence Union," this leads you straight to several results about Javier Solana's recent call for a "European Defence Union." The front page is full of results from his report. His report calls for a "European Defence Union" (EDU).

It is reasonably clear that Solana's plan is what Ursula von der Leyen is endorsing here, based on the other things she said. Solana's crew themselves say that the European Defence Union is not a European army.* So it makes sense that she would promote the European Defence Union that would lead to an EU army.

This is the second time she has pushed for a pan European armed forces. She also pushed it right after Juncker called for one, a day before Solana presented his plan. So we have hints here that Germany is going to back an integrated armed forces. This is why UKIP supporters on Twitter have been sharing this article today with great concern.

Initially, all of the frowns from the Europeans would make one think that they won't jump on board. But if you look into the tendencies of the relevant countries, it seems almost all of them could be cajoled into getting involved with that, at least some day. The only blatantly resistant one is the UK. ...And they are having elections this week.

To see why I think Solana is possibly the Antichrist, CLICK HERE.

Sorry I have not replied to all of the comments yet I will do that very soon. Please keep them coming! I enjoy hearing what you have to say and I enjoy discussing this with you all as well!

Come Lord Jesus!

*(Though very similar to an EU army, it is technically the "integration" of national armed forces under European command, with associated pooling and sharing of resources, communication, intelligence, etc).

Part 1: Who Is the 8th King?

If Solana is the beast, then his retirement is an apparent aberration in the prophetic scheme of things.

Or is it???

8 “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction. And those who dwell on the earth, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come. 9 Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits, 10 and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while. 11 The beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven, and he goes to destruction. (Revelation 17:8-11 NASB)

 This is wildly confusing, but thankfully, there are two main interpretations to this passage:

1. The seven kings represent successive Roman emperors, one of whom was reigning in John's day
2. The seven kings represent seven successive empires and kings who have persecuted God's people in the past. 

View #1 is difficult, because the Roman empire had a lot more than 7 different emperors. As a result, I side with the scholars who take the second view (and it's variants). "Mountains" can represent an empires in the Bible. And in prophecy, kings are always connected to kingdoms, and vice versa. 

The passage talks about a beast who used to exist, but is in the Abyss at the time of John's writing, but will return in the future. This is the 8th king, who is apparently one of the seven, since he is "of" the seven. The best way to interpret this is that the beast from the abyss is a specific demon who has inhabited a king in the past, is now in the Abyss, but will come back and inhabit the Antichrist. (Herb Peters held this view as well). Many people, at least broadly, accept this interpretation since they believe the Antichrist will be possessed by Satan himself, making him both the 7th and the 8th king being Satan himself.

If you look at the scheme of history, then there are 7 major empires that will persecute God's people, and each has a particularly egregious king who does the persecuting.

Antichrist & Revelation 17
	Mountain (Kingdom)	King	The Beast from the Abyss
1	Egypt	Pharaoh	N/A
2	Assyria	Sennacherib	N/A
3	Babylon	Nebuchadnezzar	N/A
4	Medo-Persia	Haman	N/A
5	Greece	Antiochus IV Epiphanes	“was,”
6	Roman Empire	Domitian	“and is not,”
7	European Union (Revived Roman Empire)	Antichrist Phase 1 Antichrist Phase 2 (Demon Possessed)	“a little while”
8			“and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction.”

As far as the 8th king is concerned, we need to find in history the other person this demon from the Abyss inhabited. He did not inhabit Domitian, but inhabited someone before him. Thankfully, we have a fairly good candidate: Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

The Bible presents numerous similarities between Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and even talks about them as if they are the same/similar person. Theologians refer to these passages as having a "dual fulfillment." Many of the prophecies were fulfilled by Antiochus, but have complete fulfillment in the end times. For example, Daniel 11:36-45 transitions to talking about the Antichrist relatively smoothly. But there is a "drop off" in which the prophecies about the king no longer have historical precedent. There is a transition from v. 35-36, but its not a dramatic one. 

Beast from the Abyss
Antiochus IV Epiphanes	Antichrist
War with Egypt, then attacks Israel	War with Egypt, then attacks Israel
Calls himself God	Calls himself God
Sets up the abomination of desolation	Sets up the abomination of desolation
Persecutes God’s people for a short time	Persecutes God’s people for a short time
Little horn of Daniel 8	Little horn of Daniel 7
Spoken of as if the same/similar person in Daniel 8
Spoken of as if the same/similar person in Daniel 11

Antiochus and the Antichrist even act the same. Domitian, as expected, doesn't fit the bill, because he was in charge of Rome when Revelation was written. But the similarities between Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Antichrist have long been noted by theologians. So apparently, the demon who inhabited Antiochus IV Epiphanes will inhabit the Antichrist in the end times.

Notice that the passage talks about a 7th king that will remain "a little while." ESV and NIV emphasize this by saying "only" a little while. To have a consistent interpretation of Scripture, the 7th head represents both the king and his kingdom. So the 7th head is the Antichrist, apparently in his non-demon possessed tenure. The 8th king likewise corresponds to another king.

All of the kings I have in that list, who persecuted Israel and/or the Church, have non-contiguous reigns. They correspond to successive empires, but as soon as one falls, they aren't immediately replaced. The next empire yields the next persecutor.

The Prewrath commentary on Revelation, who has no connection to the ENP theory whatsoever, says this about the 7th and 8th kings.

2. Is himself also an eighth and is one of the seven = is very important. This explains the mystery concerning the "was, and is not and will come" composite scarlet-beast. The composite scarlet beast is a king. He eventuates from the seven. John’s point is this: there will be seven beast/kings and one of them will service twice upon the face of the earth.

This commentary text may not mean what I am about to say. However, it is possible that the tenure of the 7th and 8th kings is "non-contiguous," i.e. not immediately next to each other or concurrent. Most theologians assume that the transfer from the 7th king (human Antichrist) to the demon possessed phase is immediate, based on the healing of the fatal wound. There is justification for this here:

And those who dwell on the earth, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come. Revelation 17: 8b

I agree that the Antichrist's fatal wound healing is connected with his demon possession, which enables the counterfeit miracle. However, this need not be immediate. He could have been inhabited by that demon long before his fatal wound.

If we go back to Daniel 11, and the relatively seamless transfer between Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Antichrist (v. 35-36), we see that this arrogant military conqueror does things before the abomination of desolation. If we view this "smooth" transfer between the two characters in Daniel 11 as being explained by the beast demon, who inhabits them both, then we will see that the Antichrist, in his demon possessed state, performs military conquests, apparently before the abomination of desolation, fatal wound, etc.

Now it clicks. 

Javier Solana & Revelation 17
	Mountain (Kingdom)	King	The Beast from the Abyss
1	Egypt	Pharaoh	N/A
2	Assyria	Sennacherib	N/A
3	Babylon	Nebuchadnezzar	N/A
4	Medo-Persia	Haman	N/A
5	Greece	Antiochus IV Epiphanes	“was,”
6	Roman Empire	Domitian	“and is not,”
7	European Union (Revived Roman Empire)	Javier Solana (1999-2009) Javier Solana Phase 2 (Demon Possessed)	“a little while”
8			“and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction.”

Regarding Javier Solana, you will notice that he isn't very boastful. He seems to be fulfilling a lot of prophecies or at least leading to them, but with the exception of being inordinately boastful. Granted, he may have a big head like all politicians. But this is not enough to fulfill the prophecies about the Antichrist. Antiochus IV Epiphanes was inordinately boastful. It seems the 8th king might be the boastful one, who inhabits the body of the 7th king.

So there is a chance that an Antichrist with multiple reigns is allowable by Scripture.



But this immediately raises questions about Javier Solana's relationship to the ten nation WEU alliance, and what prophecy says about his future role. In the next blogpost we will explore this.