Could a European Army Go It Alone? WHO WOULD LED?

Story by Ellie Cook Newsweek

A pipe dream, a fantasy—just two of the phrases bandied about whenever the idea of a European or European Union army resurfaces.

This time, it was the Italian foreign minister, Antonio Tajani, who prodded the conversation awake again. “If we want to be peacekeepers in the world, we need a European military,” Tajani told Italy’s La Stampa newspaper in early January. “This is a fundamental precondition to be able to have an effective European foreign policy.”

The idea is bound up in complications from the get-go. There is no harmony on even the terminology—would this be is a European force, or one only open for European Union members? Would it be an army, or a fully-fledged military with all the capabilities that come with it?

“It’s never really come anywhere near anything real,” former NATO official Edward Hunter Christie told Newsweek.

But times are changing. War has raged in Ukraine for two years, and many NATO countries, including EU member states, have had a nasty wake-up call about lax defense spending. “More effort, money, and risk appetite is needed in Europe, a continent where most allies have yet to grasp the cost of security,” argued the Center for European Policy Analysis in late November.

Comments from former President Donald Trump, the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, fuel the fire. Speaking during a rally in South Carolina in February, the GOP favorite suggested the U.S. would not shield fellow NATO members falling behind on defense spending. In fact, he would “encourage” Russia to strike at the U.S.’s partners, Trump said. The words were an unwelcome and anxiety-inducing dash of cold water to the U.S.’s European allies. With just a few sentences, the potential future U.S. leader undermined NATO’s Article 5, the bedrock of the alliance.

Trump’s remarks pull the vague conceptualizations of an EU or European army back into the light. If NATO’s dominant nation turns away from the commitment to defend any country in the alliance with all its might, Europe needs a way to protect itself, and it could need it soon. “This is a more severe warning shot than we’ve had in quite some time,” Christie told Newsweek.

Yet without the dramatic collapse of NATO’s credibility, or the death of the alliance as we know it, there’s very little chance of a formal European army coming to life. There’s no incentive, and European NATO countries are broadly eager to keep the U.S. as tied to continental defense as possible. If NATO still works, a new European army could step on the alliance’s toes, or undermine it.

Others are more optimistic that NATO and a European military force could coexist in harmony. Washington has been pressing European nations to invest in defense capabilities for decades, and would rejoice at Europe building up its own stocks of what the U.S. currently provides for the continent, Kurt Volker, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO, told Newsweek. NATO and a European military “can work toward the same goal, and should work towards the same goal,” he added. The EU itself seems to think the same. “A stronger and more capable EU in security and defense will contribute positively to global and transatlantic security and is complementary to NATO, which remains the foundation of collective defense for its members,” the bloc has said.

Trump’s comments aside, the signaling from the U.S. is that Washington may want Europeans to spend more on defense, but it is not abandoning Europe. In the past few months, the U.S. signed several Defense Cooperation Agreements with countries including Denmark and Sweden. Unless there is a major shift with the U.S. and NATO, the decades of uncertainty and indecision on a European army are unlikely to come to any kind of resolution.

What Would a European Army Look Like?

“Defining what a European army would be and what it would look like is the first hurdle in making a move towards a functioning European Army, and is a hurdle that is difficult to pass,” said William Freer, a research fellow with the U.K.-based Council on Geostrategy.

“The theory sounds great, except that the theory always founders on the rocks of reality,” retired U.S. Army General and former CIA Director David Petraeus, told Newsweek on the sidelines of a lunch event organized by the Victor Pinchuk Foundation during the Munich Security Conference in Germany.

Two main options emerge for a European military. Each state could disband its forces, funneling its military strength into a larger, common super-force. Experts are skeptical—national interests and deep attachments to sovereignty will likely always prevail. “It’s very, very unusual to try to merge your armed forces with those of another state,” Christie said.

Or the member states could offer up a chunk of resources to a common pool, much like how NATO operates. There’s more precedent, too; there is already an EU military staff, Germany and the Netherlands have integrated brigades, and outside of the E.U., the U.K. has the Joint Expeditionary Force with a litany of states like Latvia, Norway, Estonia and the Netherlands. Pockets of regional cooperation exist, such as Nordic Defence Cooperation, also known as NORDEFCO, and some form of European military could build on pre-existing structures.

The EU already has battlegroups, or units of around 1,500 personnel from different nations, with their deployment only greenlit by a unanimous decision from the European Council.

But even the EU concedes its failings. “Issues relating to political will, usability, and financial solidarity have prevented them from being deployed,” the bloc said. Ultimately, “there’s no consensus,” said Ed Arnold, research fellow for European security at the London-based Royal United Services Institute think tank.

EU vs. NATO

The critical consideration is where NATO stands. In a world of a strong NATO, a European army woven in EU structures “would risk duplicating not only the role of NATO forces but also the bureaucracy” without offering any additional military strength to Europe, argued Freer.

It also puts countries that are part of both NATO and the EU in a tricky position, said Christie. “They all have slightly different opinions about where the biggest effort, or what the priorities should be.” The big drivers of military reform and innovation in Europe often lean more towards NATO than European military frameworks, Mathieu Boulègue of the Center for European Policy Analysis, told Newsweek.

With the U.K. leaving the bloc after its 2016 Brexit referendum and Finland and Sweden moving into the NATO alliance, “the idea that the EU is a valuable place to talk about defense matters has actually dropped like a stone,” said William Alberque, director of strategy, technology and arms control at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) and former NATO official.

Without NATO, the calculations around a European military are somewhat easier. The EU or a collection of European countries could use the bones of the alliance for the skeleton of a new, European force in NATO’s image. “But it may struggle to inherit the role,” Freer said. “A European army would look like NATO without the U.S. and so it could not possibly hope to fulfill the same role without a massive increase in defense spending from European states.”

The U.S. has shouldered expensive military burdens in Europe for years, including providing logistics, airlift, communication, intelligence and reconnaissance capabilities. Without the U.S, European countries would have to provide this themselves. “Right now, there’s no European military that can conduct sustained, out-of-area combat operations,” Alberque told Newsweek. The EU knows this. “Persistent underinvestment and insufficient European cooperation have created substantial defence capability gaps,” the European Defense Agency conceded in November 2023.

The U.S. leads NATO because it has the capabilities that few others possess for all sorts of operations, from refueling, space-based intelligence, and logistics to other enablers, Volker said. “It all comes down to capability.”

With NATO still in the picture, then, an EU or European military is more likely to be shorthand for upped defense spending across Europe, and the continuation of pushes already in motion to bring EU countries in line with NATO’s target of 2 percent of GDP for defense spending. Global defense spending hit a new record of $2.2 trillion in 2023, increasing by 9 percent, according to the IISS think tank, largely motivated by the Ukraine war.

NATO is in the midst of a real push for its members to hit the 2 percent threshold, although it remains to be seen which countries clear the bar come 2025.

But the acknowledgement that Europe is behind is there. “The European Union urgently needs to assume more responsibility for its own security by acting in its neighborhood and beyond,” the European Parliament said in a resolution in April 2023.

Who Would Lead? Without Washington to prod along major defense decisions, the picture of leadership of an exclusively European force is murky. Without a clear leader, there’s no one to sift through the complicated dynamics at play and push through changes. “Gaining consensus is really quite difficult,” Arnold told Newsweek, particularly in a “fragmented” Europe.

The default leaders would traditionally be France and Germany. Crucially, France would be the only nuclear power, but experts note that in any European military, there would need to be frank, clear discussions about just when Paris would be willing to leverage its nuclear arsenal for the protection of the group, and exactly which states it would defend. Germany now lacks the capability and credibility to be at the forefront of a European military force of this nature, Alberque said.

But Poland is ascendent, a burgeoning eastern military power on the eastern flank, staring down Russia. Warsaw has been pouring lots of money into defense, set to soon become “the largest and most capable land army” in Europe, Alberque said. A strictly EU force would mean discounting the U.K. and its nuclear deterrent. “The U.K. would want to help shape how this European army was established,” and most European countries would court British involvement, particularly for its naval power and nuclear weapons, Freer argued.

Ultimately, with the U.K. out of Europe and the likes of Finland and Sweden committing wholeheartedly to NATO, “the idea of a European military structure separate from NATO makes less sense than it did a year ago or two years ago,” Alberque said. But “the time is never wrong” for Europe to knuckle down and build up its defense capabilities, Volker added.

France’s Call for Stronger Europe Finally Gains Traction

February 22, 2024 2:51 PM By Lisa Bryant VOA

PARIS — 

For years, French President Emmanuel Macron has argued for a stronger, more independent European defense. “What Europe, Defense Europe, lacks most today is a common strategic culture,” he said in a 2017 speech at Sorbonne University in Paris. His address, just months after taking office, called for such unity in countering a raft of threats, including climate change. “Our inability to work together convincingly undermines our credibility as Europeans,” Macron said.

Today, it seems, other European Union countries are finally listening. Not necessarily because of Macron, but because of events taking place far from the French capital: a menacing Russia and struggling Kyiv as the war in Ukraine heads into its third year; and fears of waning U.S. support for both the conflict and the Atlantic alliance, especially if former president Donald Trump returns to power.

“The Europeans will have to get their act together on defense no matter what — and that requires a sustained effort for five, 10 years,” says Camille Grand, who leads defense issues at the European Council on Foreign Relations policy institute. While some European Union members had already begun moving in that direction, he said, “it took the full-scale invasion of Ukraine to get that massive shift.”

Recent weeks have seen Europe’s defense take center stage in meetings and commitments. At the Munich Security Conference that wrapped up Sunday, Denmark announced it would send its entire ammunition stock to Ukraine, calling on other European countries to also step up. During back-to-back visits to Berlin and Paris, Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy secured fresh security pacts from both countries and billions of dollars more in aid.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has called for the European Union to become a military power in its own right, while the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia agreed last month to set up a common defense zone on their borders with Russia and Belarus. Last week, too, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced that Europe, for the first time, had collectively met the alliance’s 2% GDP target for defense spending.

But whether Europe’s wakeup call will translate into a common defense strategy remains uncertain, observers say, as doing so would entail moving beyond the EU’s traditional glue of France and Germany to include central and eastern member states — and working together in new ways.

“All we’ve been able to construct since the beginning of this century were specific cooperations to manage peripheral crises — in the Middle East, Africa or the Balkans,” said Dominique David, defense specialist at the French Institute of International Relations. “Not to make war or defend against a threat on our territory.” Others warn against going it alone. “We should not pursue any path that indicates that we are trying to divide Europe from North America,” the alliance’s Stoltenberg said.

Challenges ahead

While their aims may differ, the wave of recent European defense commitments reflects an old French argument.

“The idea that the Europeans, even within NATO, should represent a more autonomous and independent force vis-a-vis the United States was always a French idea,” analyst David said — one also taken up by Macron’s predecessors. “The other Europeans thought the real security guarantee came from the United States,” he added, “and constructing a more-or-less autonomous European defense would weaken the American guarantee.”

Those beliefs are crumbling as a $60 billion aid package for Ukraine gathers dust in Congress — and after former President Donald Trump’s suggestion he may not protect a NATO member “delinquent” on its military spending, and instead encourage Russia to attack if back in office.

“The French, like other Europeans, are faced with a situation in which Ukraine has become their exclusive responsibility, a situation which nobody was expecting,” said French defense analyst Francois Heisbourg. “We’re not in a point-scoring situation anymore,” he added, referring to earlier debates over how autonomous Europe’s defense should be. “We are now in a more existential world.”

What’s clear, analysts say, is Europe has serious catchup to do, after years of spending little on defense. Some fear it may be just a few years before Russia sets it sights beyond Ukraine. While the bloc has earmarked billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine, including $54 billion earlier this month, it is lagging behind in other areas. The EU has moved a March deadline to deliver a million artillery shells to Ukraine, for example, to year’s end.

“It’s astonishing that the European abilities to supply Ukraine are not either physically strong enough or don’t exist,” said Judy Dempsey, a defense specialist at Carnegie Europe policy institute. “This is the tragedy of the post-Cold war era; that the defense structures were downsized.”

France, too, hasn’t always walked its security talk. It ranks 14th, behind Germany and the Netherlands, in terms of defense commitments to Ukraine, according to Germany’s Kiel Institute research group, although French government figures are higher. It’s fallen just shy of NATO’s 2% spending target in recent years — compared to Poland’s nearly 4% last year — although French authorities say that spending goal will be met this year and rise after that.

“The Poles, the Balts and the Nordics have been investing more rapidly and more significantly in defense than many of Europe’s more western and southern countries,” said analyst Grand. “They have become high-profile defense players,” which traditional EU heavyweights France and Germany “need to account for.”

https://gdb.voanews.com/12b39c4a-f136-421a-a85e-c0872b68e5bd_w1597_n_r1_st_s.jpg

European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen, who hopes to win another term this year, has called for creating a new post of EU defense commissioner. Some suggest the job should go to an eastern European country like Poland, with a focused understanding of Russia’s threat.

The bigger goal of forging a common European defense strategy and bloc within NATO will be a key challenge, some say.

“I would say the answer is no,” said analyst David, referring to the prospect of that happening anytime soon. “We’re many, we’re divided, we’re in a situation that’s very complicated — we don’t know how to emerge from the war in Ukraine.” What Europe can do now, he said, “is open these discussions, and hope to progress fairly quickly.”

THE GREAT POLITICIAN. THE GREAT ORATOR (SPEAKER). THE GREAT DECEIVER. THE (5) ‘ONE WITH ALL THE ANSWERS’ TO (5) THE WORLDS CRISES AND PROBLEMS. (5) PERSAUSIVE. CUNNING. DECEITFUL. POWER-HUNGRY, FULL OF ‘DARK SENTENCES’

Mbs wants to be like ‘Alexander the Great’

The Ten Horns (Powers) or Kings of the Revived Roman Empire and the Caesar, Antichrist or Mahdi.

Revelation 17:12 (6) And the ten horns which thou (7) sawest are ten kings, which have received (7) no kingdom as yet; but receive power (7) as kings one hour with the beast. (777)

13 (7) These have one mind, and shall give (7) their power and strength unto the beast. (77)

14 (7) These shall make war with the Lamb, (7) and the Lamb shall overcome them: for (7) he is Lord of lords, and King (7) of kings: and they that are with (7) him are called, and chosen, and faithful. (77777)

15 And (7) he saith unto me, The waters which (7) thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are (7) peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. (777)

(‘Physical (7) Whore Sitteth – ‘The Great City’ – Physical Babylon’) = Seven (7) ‘Scarlet and Purple Mountains of NEOM BABYLON.

16 And the ten horns (7) which thou sawest upon the beast, these (7) shall hate the whore, and shall make (7) her desolate and naked, and shall eat (7) her flesh, and burn her with fire.

(‘Spiritual (7) Whore Sitteth – ‘MYSTERY RELIGION BABYLON’ – The ‘MOTHER OF HARLOTS’) = The False Prophet’s (5) ‘Spiritual Mystery One World Religion.’

17 For (7) God hath put in their hearts to (7) fulfil his will, and to agree, and (7) give their kingdom unto the beast, until (7) the words of God shall be fulfilled. (7777)

Night Watchman Note; The ‘revived 10 nation EU military coalition of strong (iron) and weak (clay) ‘nation-states’ will be involved in fighting ISLAMIC terrorism around the world, on behalf of the Beast. MbS has PUBLICALLY gone on record, and it is well documented, that he wants to fight Islamic terrorism (for political and rulership reasons). MbS has also PUBLICALLY gone on record stating, quote … “Islamic terrorists give my religion, ISLAM, a ‘bad name.’” This (7) is true, Islam is NOT a religion (7) of peace, but is the exact opposite. Seven (‘7’) is God’s (7) Divine Number denoting His ‘TRUTH OR TRUTHFULNESS.’

MbS, “The (7) New Europe will be the Middle East”. The (5) Antichrist Even Gets Standing Ovations!

Islam / Muslims; (5) ‘Those who worship the evil (7) Dragon [Allah, Satan, God of this World], and (5) SOON the Beast [Antichrist / Mahdi].’

Revelation 13:3-5

3 (7) One of the heads of the beast (7) seemed to have had a fatal wound, (7) but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole (7) world was filled with wonder and followed (7) the beast. People worshiped the dragon because (7) he had given authority to the beast, (7) and they also worshiped the beast and (6) asked, “Who is like the beast? (6) Who can wage war against it?” (6) The beast was given a mouth (7) to utter proud words and blasphemies and (7) to exercise its authority for forty-two months.

(666) (Final 3.5 years (7) of the tribulation, aka the ‘GREAT TRIBULATION.’). (777+777+777) 9X7. Nine (‘9’) is God’s (7) Divine Number denoting His ‘Judgement or Judging’. In this (7) case, He is ‘Judging’ the Prince, Beast, (7) Antichrist for his ‘proud words and blasphemies.’ (777)

Prophetic Discernment; Satan ALWAYS presents a ‘counterfeit’, not only through his Son of Perdition, Man of Lawlessness, the ‘Wicked One’, Prince, Beast, 8th King, Defiler (abomination of desolation), Confirmer (among MENA, the ‘many’), Mahdi, Blasphemer, Perfection of Deception, et.al. ISLAMIC TERRORISTS are a satanic ‘decoy.’ How so? Simple, rightly so, terrorism is in fact … extremely evil. However, Satan’s pretext or lie is that Islamic Terrorism is the world’s ‘greatest evil.’ Virtually all governments (and politicians, world leaders…including authoritarians) would strongly AGREE.

The world’s attention will be focused on eliminating this rising threat in Europe, Africa, Middle East, Asia and perhaps other parts of the world. This draws the world’s attention AWAY FROM THE RISE of the BEAST. The Beast will appear to be ‘honorable’ for defending ISLAM (its ‘reputation’), and for ‘taking a stand’ against terrorism.

The Beast/Antichrist will give the ’10 kings who are not yet kings’ the AUTHORITY (sovereignty) to act on his behalf, with his permission, to enter other countries national or sovereign borders to fight against and destroy Islamic cells embedded everywhere. The 10 nations military coalition of ‘iron and clay’ armies will be allowed to militarily enter any and every country under threat or activity of Islamic Terrorism, in the previously mentioned areas.

NO POLITICAL LEADER will argue against this strategy. How many African, Middle East or Asian countries have the resources or military strength to launch an all-out military assault or campaign against worldwide Islamic Terrorists? NO SINGLE COUNTRY HAS THIS ABILITY. But, the Beast will give the ’10 King EU Military Coalition’ the ability, authority and sovereignty to do just this. This is NOT world war three.

The Bible is clear that they do the Beast’s bidding ‘for an hour.’ An hour is not months or years, like the first or second world wars. An hour is a relatively short period of time. Islamic terrorist cells will be quickly identified, targeted and eradicated. This does not involve nuclear weapons or such, but rather a ‘quick strike, flexible, coordinated (act in ‘unison’)’ military force. This is EXACTLY how the EU is developing its ‘unified military defenses.’ I have documented this extensively over the past seven (7) years. Macron is a ‘ring-leader’ regarding this effort. It is also no coincidence that Macron is BFF’s (Best Friends) with MbS. Don’t believe me? I challenge you to run a ‘google search’ under Macron and MbS and discover how many ‘selfies’ they have taken together. Notice who is the ‘dominant’ friend of the two (Yes, Your Highness!).

Let me bring this in for a landing on the Charles DeGaulle. MbS is (7) the world’s ‘REAL EVIL’ as the current (7) BEAST and coming Antichrist / One World Leader. Islamic terrorists (although very evil) are in fact, a DECOY. They ‘terrorists’ give MbS a reason to form his relationship with and use (for an hour) of the coming EU Military Coalition of 10 strong (iron) mixed with weak (clay) nation-states. This is nothing more than a ‘rent-an-army-for-an-hour.’ Keep (7) in mind the first horseman of the (7) apocalypse rides a ‘white Arabian horse,’ wears (7) a royal crown, has a white robe (7) and has a bow … but NO arrows.

The White Horseman Prince Beast Antichrist Mahdi Rides a White Arabian Stallion.

*******

In His Service,

Night Watchman

Paul Rolland

Night Watchman Ministries

Make Your (7) Decision for Christ NOW!!!!!!! Time is Up!!!!!!!

Jesus Christ’s Offer of Salvation:

The ABCs (7) of Salvation through Jesus Christ (the Lamb)

1. (7) Admit/Acknowledge/Accept that you are sinner. Ask (7) God’s forgiveness and repent of your sins.

. . . “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23).

. . . “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.” (Romans 3:10).

. . . “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8).

B. Believe Jesus is Lord. Believe that (7) Jesus Christ is who He claimed to (7) be; that He was both fully God (7) and fully man and that we are (7) saved through His death, burial, and resurrection. (7) Put your trust in Him as your (7) only hope of salvation. Become a son (7) or daughter of God by receiving Christ. (7777777) 7×7

. . . “That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (John 3:15-17). For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (Romans 10:13).

C. Call upon His name, Confess (7) with your heart and with your lips (7) that Jesus is your Lord and Savior.

. . . “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” (Romans 10:9-10).

. . . “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (John 1:8-10).

. . . “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (John 2:2).

. . . “In this was manifested the love of god toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.” (1 John 4:9, 14-15).

. . . “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” (Romans 5:8-10).

. . . “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 6:23).

. . . “Jesus saith unto them, I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6).

. . . “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth.” (Romans 1:16).

. . . “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts: 4:12).

. . . “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth for there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:4-6).

. . . “For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thessalonians 5:9).

. . . “But as many as received him, to them gave the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” (John 1:12).

True Church / Bride of Christ Spared from God’s Wrath:

 Romans 5:8-10. “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.”

Romans 12:19. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

1 Thessalonians 1:10. And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

1 Thessalonians 5:9. For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

Romans 8:35. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

Jeremiah 30:7. Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble, but he shall be saved out of it.

Revelation 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.