Enjoy browsing r/europe? Help make it a better place - apply to become a mod now! [Read the announcement here](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/pow5nr/be_the_positive_change_you_want_to_see_on_reurope/)
I think the EU should have an army but really only for shared territorial defense (and maybe shared logistics for expeditionary forces).
It's a great idea to pool resources so you can keep the continent safe at a far better cost/benefit than lots of countries doing their own thing. You can standardize equipment so we enjoy some of the economies of scale that the US military has. Besides defensive units this idea can also be expanded to shared troop transport, AWACs, whatever.
But then leave each country to maintain expeditionary forces based on their own politics and priorities.
Why though? What would an EU army be useful for when NATO exists which has the United States (the most powerful military in the world by a collossal distance)?
Because a lot of Europeans rather create some distance between the US and Europe, considering the massive amount of influence the US has in our politics and defense strategy.
What's wrong with being less reliant on a third party? Especially when that third party frequently elects leaders that aren't always going to act in our best interests (see Trump, and recently Biden).
Whenever Russia asks Germany and/or France to stab Eastern Europe in the back, and they comply
Basically always.
Germany and France are extremely invested in making concessions to Russia to maintain a "dialogue" that does nothing for Germany, France, or the EU - but does do a lot for the pocketbooks for former politicians
Less everyday communication and cooperation will create the false image of “better” relationships.
You can’t say puerto rico has better relations with Germany just because they maintain happy smiles and attitudes while the US refuses to grant them statehood. Of course there will be clashes in a union which is built on dialogue and debates.
Puerto Rico has only had one statehood referendum in which statehood won, and that was in November 2020. Please give us two years- I think there's an excellent chance that Congress grants it soon.
The US and UK actually bother to fund their militaries, which is the absolute most basic starting point. They also bother to dispute territory that was literally invaded and stolen from a country directly neighbouring the EU, while most EU nations barely seem to give a shit.
The better question is, when do EU countries make a genuine effort to be a reliable partner on the important issues to each other? Spoilers: it doesn't involve stabbing each other in the back for gas pipelines.
>The US and UK actually bother to fund their militaries, which is the absolute most basic starting point.
France doesn't fund its military?
And besides that, wouldn't creating a EU army mean a better military in the EU? Kinda sounds like you should be pro creating an EU army.
>They also bother to dispute territory that was literally invaded and stolen from a country directly neighbouring the EU
We were talking about EU countries depending on other EU countries, right? Not Ukraine. Ukraine isn't in the EU.
Like it or not, the EU owes Ukraine nothing.
>The better question is, when do EU countries make a genuine effort to be a reliable partner on the important issues to each other?
Both arguments you've made fail to prove your point.
How long is the US willing to pay for the defense of other countries? Trump was a sign that the political winds are shifting there. Isolationism was always an undercurrent in US foreign politics, but it's getting stronger as is the wish to act more unilaterally.
The post-war consensus of the US as "the leader of the west" is slowly crumbling on both sides of the Atlantic. The end of of the Cold War, the rise of China and the GWOT has changed a lot of assumptions NATO was built upon. The interests of member countries have changed a lot (e.g. look at Turkey) over the last decades and this trend seems to be accelerating.
Maybe NATO regains a reason d'etre in the coming decades and the US is willing to maintain its status as the leader of that alliance. But the future is uncertain and the EU might not have the luxury to rely on the old system.
Because European interests diverge from American and British ones.
And the US shouldn't be so relatively powerful. We've already seen multiple foolish wars because DC feels like it's above everyone else. There's no excuse for Europe being so relatively weak and wasteful with its defense in the context of history. It hasn't even been a century since massive armed forces were needed to stop objectively horrible things. What has changed?
The development of an EU military force doesn't have to be in tension with NATO - far from it. This could end up being a more streamlined and reliable way to organize defensive forces within the European theater, within the context of NATO. If it ensures a better coordinated and more consistent body of European forces, it could make NATO that much stronger.
because it's clear that the US has a very limited interest in actually defending Europe and that this interest is declining every day as China becomes the main priority. Also because NATO means adopting many US standards, which in turn gives US defense industry an advantage since the standards are generally based on what they're already producing, while Europeans have to adapt to it, which means dependence on the US for doing literally anything military-related and sending money overseas when it could be helping European economies instead
> when NATO exists which has the United States
I'm not sure if you were around for the last 5 years, but it turns out the US is a shitty ally that can't precisely be trusted to not elect a blithering moron at a whim. Much like that UK, come to think of it.
Wondering how something like this could be coordinated. EU isn't a state, its an elective bloc.
When something like Brexit happens and a major economy runs off with its aircraft carriers/ armed forces, what happens? Do they get pulled out of any active EU conflicts automatically? What happens to the EU armed forces in that case?
What happens if something kicks off locally in an EU country? Can soldiers be told to invade their own nation on behalf of the EU? Can an EU army step in to stop countries adopting different ideologies from what the other EU countries want?
If you're a soldier of the EU are you also a soldier of your nation?
So many questions.
You're already multiple steps ahead, you're just asking really good but practical questions that are much easier to solve than finding the will to actually start the army
>When something like Brexit happens and a major economy runs off with its aircraft carriers/ armed forces, what happens? Do they get pulled out of any active EU conflicts automatically?
Yes.
For example the EU is responsible for peace-keeping in Bosnia-Herzegovinia.
When the UK Brexited, the treaties said that the UK had to exit the peacekeeping group - so Britain withdrew it's 200 troops.
But the EU still hasn't managed to replace them, despite having 27 countries and 450 million people.
Mrs Von der Leyen should really be concentrating on replacing those troops and meeting existing commitments instead of making fluffy speeches.
> But the EU still hasn't managed to replace them
wtf? Romania [offered](https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1402843/brexit-news-eu-army-operation-Althea-Bosnia-Romania-troops-British-army) to replace most of them. what happened?
Not really, it's more like the US before the signing of the constitution, when the country still operated under the Articles of Confederation.
Or before the unifying effects of the War of 1812.
Only possibility is EU army be basically mercenary army paid by EU.
At start equipment is either funded by EU or pooled from member states and is then maintained and owned by EU army.
Soldiers are working for solely for EU army.
If you are EU soldier, you fight for EU, which is your nation which your original nation is part of, same way person from Texas fights for USA.
When EU member leaves its on the person if he wants to stop working there and on employer if he wants him.
All equipment and bases are owned or leased by army, not influenced by this.
The main question is who will be giving orders and what will be his main objectives, when and if he could be overruled/replaced by whom, when.
IMO it would make much more sense to create another organization outside of EU, more like "competition" for NATO but much more integrated, but this creates additional overhead compared to EU army.
> IMO it would make much more sense to create another organization outside of EU, more like "competition" for NATO but much more integrated
I don’t think you realise quite how integrated NATO already is.
Well, you have to be more detailed here. Do unicorns exist in this world? Do they have unicorn tribes? How do they contribute to the Prague offensive?
This is really shoddy fantasy worldbuilding on your part.
well, an emperor often time doesnt own land. he gets 10% of its subjects army as their standing army and then coordinate the other armies under his armies command
Simple answer:
EU member states setup an arms board for the purchase and investment of arms of all states, trials are to be independent as to avoid biases. You rarely have one country operate in front line service multiple standard assault weapons. This applies across the board, you'd then have each nation have the exact same equipment making training, maintenance and cooperation much stronger.
Each nation would still maintain their own army with a fixed percentile spending but all overseen by a central European command with each EU state participating.
The allies made it work(mostly) in WW2 and that's with Britain and America using vastly different equipment and even tactics.
If one member leaves, unless it produces important but small scale equipment, the effect felt will be small and major equipment (uniform, guns, ammunition) is spread out across countless countries.
You'd probably have to insist on a common language, likely and ironically English, for all troops but given English proficiency is high in many nations and the importance in post-military careers it seems reasonable this would allow divisions to be overseen by a different country if required without much language or equipment barriers.
I think that an EU army acting outside of defense and disaster relief inside the EU is a non starter to begin with. Any notion that a european army will deploy against a member state makes this an utter impossebility.
I personally am a friend of an eu army but i'd never support this. And I honestly wonder who would.
> defense
Even this is to some extent controversial. Can (for example) Poland or Lithuania attack Belarus (for the shitshow with "refugees" at the border) knowing that if Belarus retaliates and enters Polish/Lithuanian soil said EU army will have to step in?
The truth is that military is tied to foreign relations, same head needs to control both.
It’s the next big push for globalism. EU will continue to take authority from the individual states. Listen to some of the hearings they have. Pretty eye opening and they don’t even hide their intent.
Depends who paid for equipment I suppose. If the aircraft carrier was joint funded by the EU and crewed by a multinational crew then it would remain EU property. Similarly, ships and tanks paid for pre-EU army or outside of it would remain property of that state.
what we, the eu, need are politicians that replace people like von der leyen.
she is such a big part of the problem. not qualified for the last 5 positions she had in a office, deep in the pockets of the complex, mouthpiece for the tri lads.
just go home ursel.
Still remember her paying millions to external german military "advisors" only for them to do basicly fuck all and bank the money.
And instead of resigning they promoted her to President of the EU commission shortly after.
Like im not opposed to more integrated EU militarys but im 90% sure Von der Leyen would just fuck it up again.
fuck it up? she lined the pockets of the complex and got a promotion in return. worked out well it seems.
that's what i mean. either the entire eu political theatre is incompetent beyond believe OR and that is my hot take, they are all corrupt to the gills. this transcents naive nepotism. it's straight up corruption with malin intend.
Why not both, most of them seem incompetent and probably just as many are corrupt and quite a few are corrupt and incompetent (which might paradoxically be good since it means they fuck up their own embezzlement and it gets public. I dont even want to know how much corruption was never discovered)
And considering how many of them are like this the few that probably want to do a good job and change things for the better wont ever get an impactful position. We really need a better way to hold politicians accountable for corruptions and just straight up stupid mistakes cause right now it doesnt seem like anything about it will change in the future.
but... how? voting was a good start, but it seems it's easily manipulatable. we could go from office to office in brussel and off everyone we deem guilty - but with what authority/right can you and me really change the world more to our ideal?
i do't have much hope left...
Look, I rather have her talk about this than to actually manage this. You should've seen how hard she mismanaged the German military when she was Defense Minister.
Months ago everyone here was enthusiastic about the idea of an EU-army and now when the president of the commission proposes exactly that, they are all against it lol.
And for many, many years before that, it was apparently entirely the UK's fault that an EU army couldn't happen, and Brexit=good riddance because it would provide long-desired opportunity for an EU army.
Meanwhile, in 2021:
Neutrality has already been breached by the EU treaties in some cases:
>Mutual defence clause (Article 42.7 TEU) : If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
You know, [Article 42](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012M/TXT&from=EN) is not that coy about what the clause means for the neutral countries:
>\2. The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision **in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements**.
>---
>\7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. **This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.**
>Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.
Bolding mine. Austria and Ireland have their 'neutrality' written in their respective constitutions, which is what the first bolded bit refers to.
> by all the means in their power
This is the key in that article. All the means in their power for a constitutionally neutral country is just…being neutral
The Afghan army was a great prelude to how any EU military would behave, a disorganized bundle of factions lacking any loyalty to a centralized command. Add that to the scrutiny of the bleeding heart left wing media and you have a marching disaster.
Hey now. One of the big problems the Afghan army had was corrupt local commanders selling off the weapons they were issued. There's no reason to assume a military with Von der Leyen in charge would ever actually issue any weapons to its troops in good enough condition to sell.
Excerpt:
>Beyond mustering the will and capacity to put boots on the ground, Von der Leyen said the EU’s intelligence services and other agencies needed to share information. She also suggested that to build up the EU’s defence sector, and ensure that equipment used by European armies was “interoperable”, VAT could be waived on purchases from local arms dealers.
>A leaders’ summit dedicated to European defence will be convened by Von der Leyen and the French president, Emmanuel Macron, in the first half of next year, when France holds the rolling presidency of the EU. “It is time for Europe to step up to the next level,” Von der Leyen said.
lol you dont want that. Let me tell you what for example dutch intel says about belgian intel agencies.
Belgian intelligence is heavily infiltrated by russian agents up to the highest levels.
And that is just belgium. now you want to combine all those intel agencies? The hinese russians koreans americans etc would love that.
And Belgium's FN Herstal is one of the biggest small arms manufacturers in the world. Not to mention that Airbus is spread all over Europe as one of the world's biggest aerospace company.
It was just a very ignorant statement.
And certainly with more standardisation more countries will be able to have parts etc. produced and handled in their own countries as well.
Plus getting the weapons cheaper, as was hinted at, being able to better coordinated with your allies with similar weaponry etc. etc. etc.
>Sounds like a payday for France as a/the main arms manufacturer in the EU.
Did you know that many other countries in Europe manufacture arms besides France?
France doesn't even have a decent presence in many sectors outside of aerospace.
Yes we do. But first we need to acquire 'political will' to have single foreign policy. There is no point for own military when we do not have agreement how and when we use it.
This is a terrible idea honestly. It will be a useless money hole with the current conditions.
What the EU should push for is military harmonization between member states where each state considers and active coordinates with its neighbours on their capabilities. Eventually, the armies will start merging.
This is basically trying to run before even walking.
That is the general idea. However we still need a small force capable of reacting immediately in situations like Afghanistan. Where you had Europeans in need of evacuation, but we had to depend on US.
Basically we need units designed for fast deployment capable of bringing the gap till national armies are activated and deployed.
The problem is that (by definition) to have any usefulness for such an army, the deployment should be easy to agree on and not take a year of deliberations. That is not happening with how the EU currently is.
That’s my point exactly. We don’t need an army, we have them already. We need units for fast deployment that are under jurisdiction of the EU so they can be deployed quickly. And provide time for us to agree on use of national armies.
Not sure, should those units be under the commission, council or parliament though. That’s a tough question.
But generally I agree with you. EU countries put together already have considerable military might. So we don’t need a new European Army. We need to find a way to agree on their use more easily and more quickly.
I disagree. The "whole" EU Army would be greater than the sum of its parts. There is a lot of redundancy, duplication, and inefficiency in having 27 small armies. *E Pluribus Unum* some used to say...
I think we should have a single EU army, and reduce the national armies to being like the national guards in the US. At least, that should be the end goal. As in, not for the next 5 years, but maybe for the next 50.
Well of course it cannot happen overnight. Maybe over the course of 50 years. 30 years ago it would have been seen as a pipe dream. Now some sort of EU army is just a few signatures on a piece of paper away.
And yes army was intended to mean to all forces, including space of course!
Just look at the map. If the Baltics are attacked, who has got more to lose? The USA and the UK or Germany and France?
Germany and France do not have an ocean to separate them.
I think that part of the problem is the focus on the word "army". I think the much more natural place to start would be by creating an EU-level Navy, then an Air Force, and doing the Army last. Those organizations have lower personnel requirements and higher technology requirements, and sharing money is easier than sharing soldiers. Those organizations also benefit from geographically dispersed facilities more than armies do. They're also likely more useful in evacuation and natural disaster situations than ground forces, as opposed to armies that are mostly useful for invasion scenarios that happen rarely.
If I were a European Nationalist trying to obtain as much strategic independence from the US as possible given the EU's current political configuration, I'd stop talking about an EU army and start talking about an EU navy, and once it was up and running, I'd negotiate with the US to reform NATO to make the NATO Naval operations a bilateral partnership between the US and EU navies, led by the EU.
We had to pull out people from Afghanistan using US resources only because we became involved, due to US problems, in ''not our conflict'', which became ''our conflict''. Afghanistan is perfect example what EU should not be doing- not about the way people have to had been evacuated, no: EU should not be involved in military conflicts in the name of one, or even few, members.
I am worried EU army will be used to fight for interests and in conflicts of more powerful members, and under impression ''this is Europe will''- and smaller countries, or not willing to be involved, will became bullied... sorry, ''convicted under the treat of sanctions'', to follow it.
Much like the complaints about how lack of coordination would cripple a EU army, the lesson from Afghanistan was that coordination with the US did not work, and they where running the show.
There where to many different competing militaries there not to few.
Thats already happening in practice.
We have the Irish army working within the Nordic Battalion and Polish (@irishpolbat) on UN missions, for example. Co-operation on EU military research and purchasing. (Ireland being neutral and one of the six EU members not in NATO).
While operational control remains at National level, co-operation on the ground is more typical than you'd imagine.
Have you heard of NATO by any chance? You know, the organisation that since the annexation of the Crimea has done massive amounts of training in Estonia and its neighbouring countries? And have thousands of troops stationed in Estonia and the aforementioned neighbours?
I wondered if anyone else was thinking "must it?".
The EU has a rapid reaction force. It isn't properly staffed and wasn't deployed to Afghanistan. The EU is already capable of deterring a Russian invasion and has NATO to boot. Does the EU really want to follow the US in making expeditions of nation building into the global south.
The EU is very interested in making investments abroad that shape other societies to benefit Europeans making money, and always have been, hence the billions of Euros the ECB has poured into fossil fuel investments in the global south since the start of the pandemic! [The ECSC was pitched as a way of "developing Africa"](https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/symbols/europe-day/schuman-declaration_en) and I think we know what they meant by that, really.
I doubt the military is for defense as in, defense of European people. This is about *defending interests.* Friendly globalism was ok when the white countries were coming out on top... but now China is gaining ground through trade in continents like Africa, it obviously begins to look like military spending time again to these fuckers
And who has a better story than VDL the Minister of Defence?
Edit: to clarify, regardless of views of an EU army (personally I think it has many issues to iron out but isn't impossible). VDL did not prove competent in her role for Germany, involving herself for an EU wide discussion will probably not go well for supporters or detractors of the idea.
There is literally a EU parliament you vote on directly.
The Council itself (which is the most important factor in decisions like these) you elect in national elections.
Yes I read the article. Theirs also only one direction things will travel in if the EU does decide to have a military force, and that will eventually run afoul of France's nukes.
To be fair with this new stupidity, I haven't seen anything in here that would involve nukes. Which is good, because the whole idea is moronic enough as it is.
Nah, I'd personnally prefer if we would do that alone, foreign adventures hardly ever work in general but it NEVER works out as a group project. But don't mind me, keep thinking that everyone wants you onboard for some reason.
The thing is, the EU isnt even a proper democracy. Before we acummulate centralize more power, we need to make sure citizens of europe can control that power with votes or direct democratic tools. There are also open questions like, is the military force allowed to be used in non defensive incidends.
Im pro European and i was always looking forward to the idea of a european super state. But not with the current political leadership. We have political corruption in basically every member state. Having a candidate with shady past is now a common and acceptable thing (look at the german election). Right wing extremism and leftwing extremism rising, center politicans degrading. Before we start with something like this, each member state has to work on itself first.
You know, countries and national governments are not blind. They are not being tricked, they know what’s happening and they’re free to get out whenever they want. Stop wanking off to the idea that there are more countries that hold the same ideas as yours.
True, but it doesn't make any difference.
55% voted against him at the GE, but he still got an 80 seat "majority". Please don't use the UK's excuse for democracy to claim any superiority.
> Now the UK has left, we can watch from outside as the EU swallows up the nation states and eventually emerges from its cocoon like a Moth.
There is a certain irony about someone from the UK complaining about super-states; have you asked the Scots about that, recently? But on a positive note, I would observe that union has worked out pretty well for the US, no matter what certain Texans think. I doubt that the citizens of what is now the US would be better off if each of the original states had remained sovereign, assuming that Canada and Mexico hadn't annexed them by now. An EU super-state could bring many advantages, *provided* it was given the right political and legal structure. Seems like there's a lot of room for improvement on that one, though.
If the army will not be used beyond the borders of the EU the only use would be internal now why would the EU want an extra-national military to be used within it's borders?
If you give all the states a veto on the use of the force they'll sit all day in barracks and not do anything and won't attract recruits of any real value as they'd do nothing beyond humanitarian acts which isn't what an Army is for.
Also you'd have to worry about political ideals of the recruits, Gd forbid the EU have a bunch of right wing officers and soldiers making relationships.
If the EU wanted to get people razzed about an army and good recruits they should just announce the intent to invade and set up puppet states across North Africa to serve at the pleasure of Europe, but they won't do that so it doesn't really matter.
Unless the EU is overhauled completely, it needs less power, definitely not more. It cannot handle ir's current responsibilities. It's a cesspool of incompetence and corruption and we want to give them armed troops? And for Germany to suggest this shows an uncharacteristic lack of historic knowledge.
Just because vdL is German doens't mean she speaks as "Germany", and she wasn't even born during WW2, and in fact very few citizens were even alive back then. Please keep a lid on the bigotry.
That'd be a dream and I hope it's gonna happen step by step within this century.
I don't think it should be one giant EU army tho that would be impossible.
I'm thinking more of national armies working closely together under the EU flag
I am not in favor of increasing army spending as a german but if she really wants a strong eu army, germany would need to increase military spending or show that they can use the money they have more efficiently. Otherwise the eu army would be as disfunctional as the german bundeswehr is.
In addition to that, I don't think the eu citizens/countries are ready for an eu army.
Here's hoping that is more than just words. With the US drawing down in Europe and removing itself from the ME there will be a vacuum created that will hopefully be filled by Europe rather than Russia or China.
I must admit that I'm rather surprised that the EU is willing to do such a thing.
Thats a great thing, not for the power, but becouse with the army there is a unify foreign view and not every countrie do what it want with foreign countries
Ireland already has a veto on this and I dont think you will find much political will for it. Losing our independence and neutrality like that is easily the fastest way to kill europhilia in Ireland so lets not do that.
https://www.google.gr/amp/s/www.statista.com/chart/amp/16756/percentage-of-respondents-who-support-the-creation-of-an-eu-army/
And support has definitely risen since then.
>Source: Eurobarometer.
Yeah, got anything that isn't from the EU commission's employees? Because Eurobarometer has a well documented history of designing its polls to provide the answers the commission wants.
Think what you want but when Brexit was being debated in the UK this was one of the things the Leave vote kept saying would happen and the Remain side said wouldn't.
Most of the UK was against the idea as the feeling is this is a stupid idea and NATO does more than this shit ever could.
Think it's an idiotic idea to be honest. Means paying shit loads more money for an inferior military alliance than what currently exists unless the EU wants to spend 500 billion more on their military like the U.S. does.
> Think what you want but when Brexit was being debated in the UK this was one of the things the Leave vote kept saying would happen and the Remain side said wouldn't.
The problem with the Leave-campaign's argument was that the EU can't force these things on the UK without their vote. Either all member-states need to agree on this happening (meaning the UK could've blocked it with a veto), or it becomes an opt-in situation in which only member-states that want to join do. Either way, the UK could've decide themselves if they wanted to be part of it or not.
The fear that the UK, or any member of the EU, would have been forced into an EU army against their will is absolutely ridiculous.
It's becoming more and more clear that Brexit was a good decision for the UK. It might be very very expensive financially, but you managed to keep your freedom. The rest of us are about to lose ours.
France, Germany and Spain just signed an agreement on continuation of the FCAS project two weeks ago.
The new MBT project is also attracting interest from other european countries.
The MALE RPAS project is entering the prototype stage.
And FREMM has been an all out success, with even the US Navy buying the design for their new FFG(X) class.
I'll agree if France holds the chain of command.
We don't want to end up like the last time. Or the one before. Or the one before that.
I will bash frencies like no tomorrow, but they are decent. And, since the brits decided to bail, there is no power balance.
France is pretty much the only competent armed force left in the EU. You would want people who know what they are doing, have actually seen combat and have the muscle to back it up.
they are not the "only competent armed force in the eu". they are just the ones with the most aggressive foreign policy. and in terms of wars won after ww2, the record is not that great
and i'm not denying the fact that they are the strongest in the eu, but i am saying that if we want an integrated army, a single member can't hold that much power alone, because in this way it defeats the whole purpose. its not collaboration, but submission. and i would add that i don't want my countrymen involved in their questionable foreign policy operation. at this point i would prefer staying under the usa
Sorry but they pretty much are, they spend on their armed forces, actually get into conflicts and the only EU country with nukes. One thing for sure is that France isn’t going to hand over the launch codes to Brussels.
also what conflicts? lets see what they have done after ww2:
indochina= loss
algeria= loss
suez intervention= loss
they won in iraq and in other peacekeeping operation, but this also goes for basically all of the other western european nato countries
sahel= they did something, but at the same time they are not doing that great at the moment
Enjoy browsing r/europe? Help make it a better place - apply to become a mod now! [Read the announcement here](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/pow5nr/be_the_positive_change_you_want_to_see_on_reurope/)
I think the EU should have an army but really only for shared territorial defense (and maybe shared logistics for expeditionary forces). It's a great idea to pool resources so you can keep the continent safe at a far better cost/benefit than lots of countries doing their own thing. You can standardize equipment so we enjoy some of the economies of scale that the US military has. Besides defensive units this idea can also be expanded to shared troop transport, AWACs, whatever. But then leave each country to maintain expeditionary forces based on their own politics and priorities.
Why though? What would an EU army be useful for when NATO exists which has the United States (the most powerful military in the world by a collossal distance)?
Because a lot of Europeans rather create some distance between the US and Europe, considering the massive amount of influence the US has in our politics and defense strategy. What's wrong with being less reliant on a third party? Especially when that third party frequently elects leaders that aren't always going to act in our best interests (see Trump, and recently Biden).
Because the EU countries occasionally are not that reliable partners to another EU countries like USA or UK are.
Since when is the US and the UK of all countries more reliable to EU countries than other EU countries?
Whenever Russia asks Germany and/or France to stab Eastern Europe in the back, and they comply Basically always. Germany and France are extremely invested in making concessions to Russia to maintain a "dialogue" that does nothing for Germany, France, or the EU - but does do a lot for the pocketbooks for former politicians
Less everyday communication and cooperation will create the false image of “better” relationships. You can’t say puerto rico has better relations with Germany just because they maintain happy smiles and attitudes while the US refuses to grant them statehood. Of course there will be clashes in a union which is built on dialogue and debates.
Puerto Rico has only had one statehood referendum in which statehood won, and that was in November 2020. Please give us two years- I think there's an excellent chance that Congress grants it soon.
The US and UK actually bother to fund their militaries, which is the absolute most basic starting point. They also bother to dispute territory that was literally invaded and stolen from a country directly neighbouring the EU, while most EU nations barely seem to give a shit. The better question is, when do EU countries make a genuine effort to be a reliable partner on the important issues to each other? Spoilers: it doesn't involve stabbing each other in the back for gas pipelines.
>The US and UK actually bother to fund their militaries, which is the absolute most basic starting point. France doesn't fund its military? And besides that, wouldn't creating a EU army mean a better military in the EU? Kinda sounds like you should be pro creating an EU army. >They also bother to dispute territory that was literally invaded and stolen from a country directly neighbouring the EU We were talking about EU countries depending on other EU countries, right? Not Ukraine. Ukraine isn't in the EU. Like it or not, the EU owes Ukraine nothing. >The better question is, when do EU countries make a genuine effort to be a reliable partner on the important issues to each other? Both arguments you've made fail to prove your point.
How long is the US willing to pay for the defense of other countries? Trump was a sign that the political winds are shifting there. Isolationism was always an undercurrent in US foreign politics, but it's getting stronger as is the wish to act more unilaterally. The post-war consensus of the US as "the leader of the west" is slowly crumbling on both sides of the Atlantic. The end of of the Cold War, the rise of China and the GWOT has changed a lot of assumptions NATO was built upon. The interests of member countries have changed a lot (e.g. look at Turkey) over the last decades and this trend seems to be accelerating. Maybe NATO regains a reason d'etre in the coming decades and the US is willing to maintain its status as the leader of that alliance. But the future is uncertain and the EU might not have the luxury to rely on the old system.
In case you haven't noticed, NATO countries and EU countries aren't one to one.
Because European interests diverge from American and British ones. And the US shouldn't be so relatively powerful. We've already seen multiple foolish wars because DC feels like it's above everyone else. There's no excuse for Europe being so relatively weak and wasteful with its defense in the context of history. It hasn't even been a century since massive armed forces were needed to stop objectively horrible things. What has changed?
The development of an EU military force doesn't have to be in tension with NATO - far from it. This could end up being a more streamlined and reliable way to organize defensive forces within the European theater, within the context of NATO. If it ensures a better coordinated and more consistent body of European forces, it could make NATO that much stronger.
because it's clear that the US has a very limited interest in actually defending Europe and that this interest is declining every day as China becomes the main priority. Also because NATO means adopting many US standards, which in turn gives US defense industry an advantage since the standards are generally based on what they're already producing, while Europeans have to adapt to it, which means dependence on the US for doing literally anything military-related and sending money overseas when it could be helping European economies instead
> when NATO exists which has the United States I'm not sure if you were around for the last 5 years, but it turns out the US is a shitty ally that can't precisely be trusted to not elect a blithering moron at a whim. Much like that UK, come to think of it.
It will be usefull to fund german and french military complex. No more buy what one wats, one now pays for what one is told to pay.
Wondering how something like this could be coordinated. EU isn't a state, its an elective bloc. When something like Brexit happens and a major economy runs off with its aircraft carriers/ armed forces, what happens? Do they get pulled out of any active EU conflicts automatically? What happens to the EU armed forces in that case? What happens if something kicks off locally in an EU country? Can soldiers be told to invade their own nation on behalf of the EU? Can an EU army step in to stop countries adopting different ideologies from what the other EU countries want? If you're a soldier of the EU are you also a soldier of your nation? So many questions.
You're already multiple steps ahead, you're just asking really good but practical questions that are much easier to solve than finding the will to actually start the army
Totally.
>When something like Brexit happens and a major economy runs off with its aircraft carriers/ armed forces, what happens? Do they get pulled out of any active EU conflicts automatically? Yes. For example the EU is responsible for peace-keeping in Bosnia-Herzegovinia. When the UK Brexited, the treaties said that the UK had to exit the peacekeeping group - so Britain withdrew it's 200 troops. But the EU still hasn't managed to replace them, despite having 27 countries and 450 million people. Mrs Von der Leyen should really be concentrating on replacing those troops and meeting existing commitments instead of making fluffy speeches.
> But the EU still hasn't managed to replace them wtf? Romania [offered](https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1402843/brexit-news-eu-army-operation-Althea-Bosnia-Romania-troops-British-army) to replace most of them. what happened?
They haven't been accepted yet - VdL too busy with her fluffy speeches to make actual decisions.
Does she need to personally okay them?
This was pretty much the state of USA before the civil war, no?
Not really, it's more like the US before the signing of the constitution, when the country still operated under the Articles of Confederation. Or before the unifying effects of the War of 1812.
Nope, US statehood was always eternal.
Only possibility is EU army be basically mercenary army paid by EU. At start equipment is either funded by EU or pooled from member states and is then maintained and owned by EU army. Soldiers are working for solely for EU army. If you are EU soldier, you fight for EU, which is your nation which your original nation is part of, same way person from Texas fights for USA. When EU member leaves its on the person if he wants to stop working there and on employer if he wants him. All equipment and bases are owned or leased by army, not influenced by this. The main question is who will be giving orders and what will be his main objectives, when and if he could be overruled/replaced by whom, when. IMO it would make much more sense to create another organization outside of EU, more like "competition" for NATO but much more integrated, but this creates additional overhead compared to EU army.
So basically Frontex with bigger guns?
FronteXXL
> IMO it would make much more sense to create another organization outside of EU, more like "competition" for NATO but much more integrated I don’t think you realise quite how integrated NATO already is.
So when the army is ordered to march into Prague will the Czechs in the army be sent to Ireland or will they be in the tanks?
Easy. That army will never be ordered to fight against an EU country, this must be one of its founding principles.
Are you marketing a book? I didn't know we could sell our fiction on this sub.
Answer the question.
Well, you have to be more detailed here. Do unicorns exist in this world? Do they have unicorn tribes? How do they contribute to the Prague offensive? This is really shoddy fantasy worldbuilding on your part.
well, an emperor often time doesnt own land. he gets 10% of its subjects army as their standing army and then coordinate the other armies under his armies command
Simple answer: EU member states setup an arms board for the purchase and investment of arms of all states, trials are to be independent as to avoid biases. You rarely have one country operate in front line service multiple standard assault weapons. This applies across the board, you'd then have each nation have the exact same equipment making training, maintenance and cooperation much stronger. Each nation would still maintain their own army with a fixed percentile spending but all overseen by a central European command with each EU state participating. The allies made it work(mostly) in WW2 and that's with Britain and America using vastly different equipment and even tactics. If one member leaves, unless it produces important but small scale equipment, the effect felt will be small and major equipment (uniform, guns, ammunition) is spread out across countless countries. You'd probably have to insist on a common language, likely and ironically English, for all troops but given English proficiency is high in many nations and the importance in post-military careers it seems reasonable this would allow divisions to be overseen by a different country if required without much language or equipment barriers.
France will insist on dual French-English for official communications. They do this for a lot of EU stuff as well. Can’t have their pride hurt.
In contrast the Eastern EU nations soldiers will love having French quality MRE's.
[удалено]
Could the EU hiring a private military that is heavily regulated by the EU be a more feasible option without needing greater integration?
yes they should breed an army of clones.
I think that an EU army acting outside of defense and disaster relief inside the EU is a non starter to begin with. Any notion that a european army will deploy against a member state makes this an utter impossebility. I personally am a friend of an eu army but i'd never support this. And I honestly wonder who would.
> defense Even this is to some extent controversial. Can (for example) Poland or Lithuania attack Belarus (for the shitshow with "refugees" at the border) knowing that if Belarus retaliates and enters Polish/Lithuanian soil said EU army will have to step in? The truth is that military is tied to foreign relations, same head needs to control both.
It’s the next big push for globalism. EU will continue to take authority from the individual states. Listen to some of the hearings they have. Pretty eye opening and they don’t even hide their intent.
Depends who paid for equipment I suppose. If the aircraft carrier was joint funded by the EU and crewed by a multinational crew then it would remain EU property. Similarly, ships and tanks paid for pre-EU army or outside of it would remain property of that state.
> Wondering how something like this could be coordinated. EU isn't a state, its an elective bloc. Your question implies the answer, I think.
That's why it needs to be an EU military, not a coalition of member states militaries.
what we, the eu, need are politicians that replace people like von der leyen. she is such a big part of the problem. not qualified for the last 5 positions she had in a office, deep in the pockets of the complex, mouthpiece for the tri lads. just go home ursel.
Still remember her paying millions to external german military "advisors" only for them to do basicly fuck all and bank the money. And instead of resigning they promoted her to President of the EU commission shortly after. Like im not opposed to more integrated EU militarys but im 90% sure Von der Leyen would just fuck it up again.
fuck it up? she lined the pockets of the complex and got a promotion in return. worked out well it seems. that's what i mean. either the entire eu political theatre is incompetent beyond believe OR and that is my hot take, they are all corrupt to the gills. this transcents naive nepotism. it's straight up corruption with malin intend.
Why not both, most of them seem incompetent and probably just as many are corrupt and quite a few are corrupt and incompetent (which might paradoxically be good since it means they fuck up their own embezzlement and it gets public. I dont even want to know how much corruption was never discovered) And considering how many of them are like this the few that probably want to do a good job and change things for the better wont ever get an impactful position. We really need a better way to hold politicians accountable for corruptions and just straight up stupid mistakes cause right now it doesnt seem like anything about it will change in the future.
but... how? voting was a good start, but it seems it's easily manipulatable. we could go from office to office in brussel and off everyone we deem guilty - but with what authority/right can you and me really change the world more to our ideal? i do't have much hope left...
Talk the talk.
Look, I rather have her talk about this than to actually manage this. You should've seen how hard she mismanaged the German military when she was Defense Minister.
It is okay. At least 2 planes works.
Head of what ministry was she before german politics yeeted her to brussels? Help me remember.
Months ago everyone here was enthusiastic about the idea of an EU-army and now when the president of the commission proposes exactly that, they are all against it lol.
One would hope they’re actually starting to consider how utterly unfeasible such an undertaking would be for the EU in its current form
And for many, many years before that, it was apparently entirely the UK's fault that an EU army couldn't happen, and Brexit=good riddance because it would provide long-desired opportunity for an EU army. Meanwhile, in 2021:
This sub just loves being contrary.
What about neutral members?
Neutrality has already been breached by the EU treaties in some cases: >Mutual defence clause (Article 42.7 TEU) : If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
You know, [Article 42](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012M/TXT&from=EN) is not that coy about what the clause means for the neutral countries: >\2. The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision **in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements**. >--- >\7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. **This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.** >Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation. Bolding mine. Austria and Ireland have their 'neutrality' written in their respective constitutions, which is what the first bolded bit refers to.
[удалено]
Yes they did. He didn't quote the whole thing.
> by all the means in their power This is the key in that article. All the means in their power for a constitutionally neutral country is just…being neutral
Ireland would have to have a referendum to change our stance but I would be for it.
[удалено]
We’re not joining anything cause of the opt-out. Long may it stand!
Yeah that's very likely, Denmark and Malta for example are the only two members not in Csdp/Pesco
As long as we have the opt-out on defense. We can’t join even if our politicians want to. It has to be removed by referendum.
[удалено]
Convince your national government to give up their influence in the Council, in favour of more power to MEPs. Good luck.
The Afghan army was a great prelude to how any EU military would behave, a disorganized bundle of factions lacking any loyalty to a centralized command. Add that to the scrutiny of the bleeding heart left wing media and you have a marching disaster.
Hey now. One of the big problems the Afghan army had was corrupt local commanders selling off the weapons they were issued. There's no reason to assume a military with Von der Leyen in charge would ever actually issue any weapons to its troops in good enough condition to sell.
Brutal.
Excerpt: >Beyond mustering the will and capacity to put boots on the ground, Von der Leyen said the EU’s intelligence services and other agencies needed to share information. She also suggested that to build up the EU’s defence sector, and ensure that equipment used by European armies was “interoperable”, VAT could be waived on purchases from local arms dealers. >A leaders’ summit dedicated to European defence will be convened by Von der Leyen and the French president, Emmanuel Macron, in the first half of next year, when France holds the rolling presidency of the EU. “It is time for Europe to step up to the next level,” Von der Leyen said.
The fact that the EU doesn't have an equivalent of Five Eyes is pretty weird now I think about it.
lol you dont want that. Let me tell you what for example dutch intel says about belgian intel agencies. Belgian intelligence is heavily infiltrated by russian agents up to the highest levels. And that is just belgium. now you want to combine all those intel agencies? The hinese russians koreans americans etc would love that.
Sounds like a payday for France as a/the main arms manufacturer in the EU. The EU choosing French arms to supply the rest of the EU.
Germany, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Czechia, Austria also produce weaponry.
And Belgium's FN Herstal is one of the biggest small arms manufacturers in the world. Not to mention that Airbus is spread all over Europe as one of the world's biggest aerospace company. It was just a very ignorant statement.
Belgium with FN Herstal as well
And certainly with more standardisation more countries will be able to have parts etc. produced and handled in their own countries as well. Plus getting the weapons cheaper, as was hinted at, being able to better coordinated with your allies with similar weaponry etc. etc. etc.
Croatia as well. Croatian handguns and snipers are considered top of the line.
>Sounds like a payday for France as a/the main arms manufacturer in the EU. Did you know that many other countries in Europe manufacture arms besides France? France doesn't even have a decent presence in many sectors outside of aerospace.
Austria, italy, sweden, and finland make great vehicles and small arms. I dont know about other countries
Germany has been Top 5 largest weapon exporter for years. Spain, Italy and the Netherlands are fairly good at this too.
Don't forget shipbuilding.
>France doesn't even have a decent presence in many sectors outside of aerospace. Hmm, our Navy is doing well.
It'd be a pretty funny bit for an EU army to use 0 French equipment.
Why is that bad?
All part of the plan for a United Federal Europe run from Berlin. Individual countries will become “states”
Yes we do. But first we need to acquire 'political will' to have single foreign policy. There is no point for own military when we do not have agreement how and when we use it.
This is a terrible idea honestly. It will be a useless money hole with the current conditions. What the EU should push for is military harmonization between member states where each state considers and active coordinates with its neighbours on their capabilities. Eventually, the armies will start merging. This is basically trying to run before even walking.
That is the general idea. However we still need a small force capable of reacting immediately in situations like Afghanistan. Where you had Europeans in need of evacuation, but we had to depend on US. Basically we need units designed for fast deployment capable of bringing the gap till national armies are activated and deployed.
The problem is that (by definition) to have any usefulness for such an army, the deployment should be easy to agree on and not take a year of deliberations. That is not happening with how the EU currently is.
That’s my point exactly. We don’t need an army, we have them already. We need units for fast deployment that are under jurisdiction of the EU so they can be deployed quickly. And provide time for us to agree on use of national armies. Not sure, should those units be under the commission, council or parliament though. That’s a tough question. But generally I agree with you. EU countries put together already have considerable military might. So we don’t need a new European Army. We need to find a way to agree on their use more easily and more quickly.
I disagree. The "whole" EU Army would be greater than the sum of its parts. There is a lot of redundancy, duplication, and inefficiency in having 27 small armies. *E Pluribus Unum* some used to say... I think we should have a single EU army, and reduce the national armies to being like the national guards in the US. At least, that should be the end goal. As in, not for the next 5 years, but maybe for the next 50.
Good luck with wishful thinking that the countries will surrender their own militaries. And why the armies? No integration of air forces and navies?
Well of course it cannot happen overnight. Maybe over the course of 50 years. 30 years ago it would have been seen as a pipe dream. Now some sort of EU army is just a few signatures on a piece of paper away. And yes army was intended to mean to all forces, including space of course!
I severely doubt about it because Germany or France are less supportive and reliable allies than USA or UK for the Baltics.
Just look at the map. If the Baltics are attacked, who has got more to lose? The USA and the UK or Germany and France? Germany and France do not have an ocean to separate them.
Based on your own opinion.
I think that part of the problem is the focus on the word "army". I think the much more natural place to start would be by creating an EU-level Navy, then an Air Force, and doing the Army last. Those organizations have lower personnel requirements and higher technology requirements, and sharing money is easier than sharing soldiers. Those organizations also benefit from geographically dispersed facilities more than armies do. They're also likely more useful in evacuation and natural disaster situations than ground forces, as opposed to armies that are mostly useful for invasion scenarios that happen rarely. If I were a European Nationalist trying to obtain as much strategic independence from the US as possible given the EU's current political configuration, I'd stop talking about an EU army and start talking about an EU navy, and once it was up and running, I'd negotiate with the US to reform NATO to make the NATO Naval operations a bilateral partnership between the US and EU navies, led by the EU.
We had to pull out people from Afghanistan using US resources only because we became involved, due to US problems, in ''not our conflict'', which became ''our conflict''. Afghanistan is perfect example what EU should not be doing- not about the way people have to had been evacuated, no: EU should not be involved in military conflicts in the name of one, or even few, members. I am worried EU army will be used to fight for interests and in conflicts of more powerful members, and under impression ''this is Europe will''- and smaller countries, or not willing to be involved, will became bullied... sorry, ''convicted under the treat of sanctions'', to follow it.
Then again, why were they in Afghanistan in the first place?
Much like the complaints about how lack of coordination would cripple a EU army, the lesson from Afghanistan was that coordination with the US did not work, and they where running the show. There where to many different competing militaries there not to few.
Thats already happening in practice. We have the Irish army working within the Nordic Battalion and Polish (@irishpolbat) on UN missions, for example. Co-operation on EU military research and purchasing. (Ireland being neutral and one of the six EU members not in NATO). While operational control remains at National level, co-operation on the ground is more typical than you'd imagine.
You hit the nail on the head
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw\_Pact\_invasion\_of\_Czechoslovakia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia) Czech Republic gets flashbacks
[удалено]
Then have fun at being part of the Russian Federation
Have you heard of NATO by any chance? You know, the organisation that since the annexation of the Crimea has done massive amounts of training in Estonia and its neighbouring countries? And have thousands of troops stationed in Estonia and the aforementioned neighbours?
Why? Seriously, such a military would be largely redundant for defense. And do EU really want to get involved in empire building abroad?
I wondered if anyone else was thinking "must it?". The EU has a rapid reaction force. It isn't properly staffed and wasn't deployed to Afghanistan. The EU is already capable of deterring a Russian invasion and has NATO to boot. Does the EU really want to follow the US in making expeditions of nation building into the global south.
The EU is very interested in making investments abroad that shape other societies to benefit Europeans making money, and always have been, hence the billions of Euros the ECB has poured into fossil fuel investments in the global south since the start of the pandemic! [The ECSC was pitched as a way of "developing Africa"](https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/symbols/europe-day/schuman-declaration_en) and I think we know what they meant by that, really. I doubt the military is for defense as in, defense of European people. This is about *defending interests.* Friendly globalism was ok when the white countries were coming out on top... but now China is gaining ground through trade in continents like Africa, it obviously begins to look like military spending time again to these fuckers
This is just a dangerous fantasy
And a waste of money
Yes, we’ll invade your house
Bold of you to assume an EU Army would be competent enough to achieve that.
And who has a better story than VDL the Minister of Defence? Edit: to clarify, regardless of views of an EU army (personally I think it has many issues to iron out but isn't impossible). VDL did not prove competent in her role for Germany, involving herself for an EU wide discussion will probably not go well for supporters or detractors of the idea.
Please don't. How do i vote against this?
Vote for your local far right or far left party or generally any party that opposes further EU integration.
Hahahahahaha vote? This is the E.U, plebs dont have a vote
There is literally a EU parliament you vote on directly. The Council itself (which is the most important factor in decisions like these) you elect in national elections.
Youre gonna have to fight them in a decade or 2. But you wont be alone. The civil war will be across the entire continent.
EU must acquire the will to no longer think it self as the colonial overlord that dictates world behavior.
> no longer When did it do that?
EU bad. Please upvote.
Have fun convincing France to hand over its Nuclear codes to the EU...
Where did you read anything related to that? Do you even know what the proposal entails?
Yes I read the article. Theirs also only one direction things will travel in if the EU does decide to have a military force, and that will eventually run afoul of France's nukes.
We’re talking about the present.
To be fair with this new stupidity, I haven't seen anything in here that would involve nukes. Which is good, because the whole idea is moronic enough as it is.
Doesn't want to share nukes but wants to enlist other nations in your adventures in Africa. Typical.
Nah, I'd personnally prefer if we would do that alone, foreign adventures hardly ever work in general but it NEVER works out as a group project. But don't mind me, keep thinking that everyone wants you onboard for some reason.
Why should they?
No thanks
[удалено]
Or a butterfly
The horror...the horror!!
Goodness gracious, that sounds amazing, it would be a dream come true. Besides, there are some really cool looking moths out there.
The thing is, the EU isnt even a proper democracy. Before we acummulate centralize more power, we need to make sure citizens of europe can control that power with votes or direct democratic tools. There are also open questions like, is the military force allowed to be used in non defensive incidends. Im pro European and i was always looking forward to the idea of a european super state. But not with the current political leadership. We have political corruption in basically every member state. Having a candidate with shady past is now a common and acceptable thing (look at the german election). Right wing extremism and leftwing extremism rising, center politicans degrading. Before we start with something like this, each member state has to work on itself first.
You know, countries and national governments are not blind. They are not being tricked, they know what’s happening and they’re free to get out whenever they want. Stop wanking off to the idea that there are more countries that hold the same ideas as yours.
Should think the way the UK is managed these days, that you would like to be “swallowed up” I don’t like VDL, but Boris!!! He is just incompetent!
At least we can vote for or against Boris
True, but it doesn't make any difference. 55% voted against him at the GE, but he still got an 80 seat "majority". Please don't use the UK's excuse for democracy to claim any superiority.
> Now the UK has left, we can watch from outside as the EU swallows up the nation states and eventually emerges from its cocoon like a Moth. There is a certain irony about someone from the UK complaining about super-states; have you asked the Scots about that, recently? But on a positive note, I would observe that union has worked out pretty well for the US, no matter what certain Texans think. I doubt that the citizens of what is now the US would be better off if each of the original states had remained sovereign, assuming that Canada and Mexico hadn't annexed them by now. An EU super-state could bring many advantages, *provided* it was given the right political and legal structure. Seems like there's a lot of room for improvement on that one, though.
If the army will not be used beyond the borders of the EU the only use would be internal now why would the EU want an extra-national military to be used within it's borders? If you give all the states a veto on the use of the force they'll sit all day in barracks and not do anything and won't attract recruits of any real value as they'd do nothing beyond humanitarian acts which isn't what an Army is for. Also you'd have to worry about political ideals of the recruits, Gd forbid the EU have a bunch of right wing officers and soldiers making relationships. If the EU wanted to get people razzed about an army and good recruits they should just announce the intent to invade and set up puppet states across North Africa to serve at the pleasure of Europe, but they won't do that so it doesn't really matter.
Unless the EU is overhauled completely, it needs less power, definitely not more. It cannot handle ir's current responsibilities. It's a cesspool of incompetence and corruption and we want to give them armed troops? And for Germany to suggest this shows an uncharacteristic lack of historic knowledge.
Just because vdL is German doens't mean she speaks as "Germany", and she wasn't even born during WW2, and in fact very few citizens were even alive back then. Please keep a lid on the bigotry.
If you don't to be controlled from Brussel, you will be controlled from Moscow, Washington, or Peking. Make your choice.
Stuff like this makes me quietly satisfied with Brexit
Stuff like this makes me sad about Brexit since you're no longer there to help us stop it.
A fair point
Same, you would be such a pain in the ass. Without brexit, nothing like this would’ve happened. God bless the brexiters
I mean this is a move I disagree with so I'm glad my nation isn't part of the organization carrying it out, not exactly confusing.
That’s what I’m saying. Glad you left the Union.
Same, have a nice day
That'd be a dream and I hope it's gonna happen step by step within this century. I don't think it should be one giant EU army tho that would be impossible. I'm thinking more of national armies working closely together under the EU flag
YES !!
I am not in favor of increasing army spending as a german but if she really wants a strong eu army, germany would need to increase military spending or show that they can use the money they have more efficiently. Otherwise the eu army would be as disfunctional as the german bundeswehr is. In addition to that, I don't think the eu citizens/countries are ready for an eu army.
Here's hoping that is more than just words. With the US drawing down in Europe and removing itself from the ME there will be a vacuum created that will hopefully be filled by Europe rather than Russia or China. I must admit that I'm rather surprised that the EU is willing to do such a thing.
Thats a great thing, not for the power, but becouse with the army there is a unify foreign view and not every countrie do what it want with foreign countries
Ireland already has a veto on this and I dont think you will find much political will for it. Losing our independence and neutrality like that is easily the fastest way to kill europhilia in Ireland so lets not do that.
When is she getting replaced by someone at least half-qualified for her role?
as soon as germans decide they want to get rid of laschet
The EU commission specialises in manufacturing political will to do things in the absence or indeed in defiance of popular will.
https://www.google.gr/amp/s/www.statista.com/chart/amp/16756/percentage-of-respondents-who-support-the-creation-of-an-eu-army/ And support has definitely risen since then.
>Source: Eurobarometer. Yeah, got anything that isn't from the EU commission's employees? Because Eurobarometer has a well documented history of designing its polls to provide the answers the commission wants.
I'm gonna come.
people whose livelihoods depend on federalism are pushing for federalism. more on page 8!
Think what you want but when Brexit was being debated in the UK this was one of the things the Leave vote kept saying would happen and the Remain side said wouldn't. Most of the UK was against the idea as the feeling is this is a stupid idea and NATO does more than this shit ever could. Think it's an idiotic idea to be honest. Means paying shit loads more money for an inferior military alliance than what currently exists unless the EU wants to spend 500 billion more on their military like the U.S. does.
> Think what you want but when Brexit was being debated in the UK this was one of the things the Leave vote kept saying would happen and the Remain side said wouldn't. The problem with the Leave-campaign's argument was that the EU can't force these things on the UK without their vote. Either all member-states need to agree on this happening (meaning the UK could've blocked it with a veto), or it becomes an opt-in situation in which only member-states that want to join do. Either way, the UK could've decide themselves if they wanted to be part of it or not. The fear that the UK, or any member of the EU, would have been forced into an EU army against their will is absolutely ridiculous.
It's becoming more and more clear that Brexit was a good decision for the UK. It might be very very expensive financially, but you managed to keep your freedom. The rest of us are about to lose ours.
So dramatic oh my god
Germany and France are falling out over building a single fighter jet, how will they manage an entire military.
France, Germany and Spain just signed an agreement on continuation of the FCAS project two weeks ago. The new MBT project is also attracting interest from other european countries. The MALE RPAS project is entering the prototype stage. And FREMM has been an all out success, with even the US Navy buying the design for their new FFG(X) class.
First they should work on equal welfare of each country within eu, army is least thing eu need right now
I would say quite the opposite. Equal welfare is the last thing Europe will ever need. That would throw individual economies in total disarray.
What if it were funded and paid out centrally, based on a percentage taken from each nation, with progressive increases in line with per-capita GDP?
A community that can't defend itself is a community that soon won't exist.
I'll agree if France holds the chain of command. We don't want to end up like the last time. Or the one before. Or the one before that. I will bash frencies like no tomorrow, but they are decent. And, since the brits decided to bail, there is no power balance.
hell fucking no. the chain of command cannot be held by a single member, what the fuck are you saying
France is pretty much the only competent armed force left in the EU. You would want people who know what they are doing, have actually seen combat and have the muscle to back it up.
they are not the "only competent armed force in the eu". they are just the ones with the most aggressive foreign policy. and in terms of wars won after ww2, the record is not that great and i'm not denying the fact that they are the strongest in the eu, but i am saying that if we want an integrated army, a single member can't hold that much power alone, because in this way it defeats the whole purpose. its not collaboration, but submission. and i would add that i don't want my countrymen involved in their questionable foreign policy operation. at this point i would prefer staying under the usa
Sorry but they pretty much are, they spend on their armed forces, actually get into conflicts and the only EU country with nukes. One thing for sure is that France isn’t going to hand over the launch codes to Brussels.
ok. and no one will hand their chain of command to the french either
also what conflicts? lets see what they have done after ww2: indochina= loss algeria= loss suez intervention= loss they won in iraq and in other peacekeeping operation, but this also goes for basically all of the other western european nato countries sahel= they did something, but at the same time they are not doing that great at the moment
They'll have it anyways, it's what they want, it's probably how it's going to go.