Why I Think the EU Should Create an European Army

Why I Think the EU Should Create an European Army

Now to start off with I want to put a few disclaimers. I am not a big fan of military spending during peacetime nor do I think Europe should go on the offensive against another country yet I feel that the establishment of a unified army is necessary at this stage.


Before we go into any future European Army lets first look at the current military cooperation and what I see as problems with them. First of all we have NATO which is not strictly an EU entity but for all intents and purposes it could function as one. The problem with NATO however is that not all EU nations are part of it and its reliability has become questionable ever since Trump became president.

That said the EU already has the "Common Security and Defence Policy" which functions somewhat like a United Nations peacekeeping force but which critically has already established cooperation between the majority (25) of EU nations (28). It is a sprawling and confusing mess to untangle as its still being worked on to this day but two parts of it stand out in particular.

First we have the EU "Battle Groups". These are what you might consider the current EU peacekeeping force/army and consist of 18 groups of 1500 men each. These are rotated so that two is active at any one time and is under the direct command of EU council. These groups are basically volunteered by cooperating nations and meant to handle small scale disturbances and natural disasters.

Beyond that we have the "European Union Force Crisis Response Operation Core" which is a fancy name for a unified system to rapidly deploy tens of thousands of personnel in the event of a crisis under a single command structure. This is basically the closest we have to a standing European army right now but it is still under development and would only function as crisis response rather than a proper army.

Understanding the problem

So now lets just examine the current situation in the EU. The EU has the largest economy in the world right now and a population of 508 million people. To put that into context the EU has twice the economy of China but under half the population to their 1.3 billion people. That is absolutely nothing to scoff at and if the EU ever took its defense seriously then it would probably have the strongest military in the world unless USA hit the ropes again and got rid of its peacetime fat as well at which point it would be hard to tell.

So if its not its potential then where is the problem? Is it the military spending? Not exactly, even though most EU nations fall short of the 2% magical number that Trump likes to bring up they are still spending an astronomical sum on their military. They are just not getting very much for it. In fact most of the stuff they do have is not fit to be deployed and in need of renovation and repair which I can honestly totally understand since we have simply not needed it so why bother? The only real issue here is that the money is still rolling in and we are not getting the bang for our buck so to speak.

So what is really going on here since we obviously have some horrible problem behind the scenes. The question is Politics. Not only is military spending a losing issue in most European countries which means that politicians running on those issues often lose and those that run on cutting it often win but its also not that easy to convince a nation that instead of focusing on a national army they should invest in an alliance army.

Another more recent development which in my opinion forces the EU to reform their military is the collapsing relationship between the EU and USA. Without the full trust in the USA and with lingering threats in Russia and China the EU is in a completely different situation than 10 years ago.

Why I Think the EU Should Create an European Army

Understanding my solution

Now with all these problems facing the EU it is not particularly strange to expect the solution to be a drastic change and the creation of an EU army would definitely be a big departure from how the EU has been handling things up to this point.

The thing is however that EU nations need a military reform and the need to cooperate in the future is undeniable. Taking the chance to establishing a standing EU army would not only help reform the military to become more useful but it would also most likely lower the spending as well as less money would be thrown away needlessly. Currently there is not a need to mobilize a proper army to defend the EU so minimizing military spending is a worthwhile goal.

Having the Army there as a rapid response force is already useful but the real value is in how quick and efficient an EU army could be mobilized inside these already established infrastructure which would allow us to stand up to any future threat that the EU might face.

As such I consider an EU army to not only be the best choice for EU safety in an increasingly unsure world but also in terms of cost and operational efficiency.

Why I Think the EU Should Create an European Army
Add Opinion
8Girl Opinion
37Guy Opinion

Most Helpful Guys

  • BlueCoyote
    I generally don't like the idea of building up large armies (whether national or international). It encourages leaders around the world to engage in an arms race, which I find very dangerous and worrisome. For example if Europe got itself a big military, America, China and Russia would almost certainly want to enlarge theirs too. And you don't have a gigantic military for nothing... sooner or later someone will want to use it. It's a direct path towards disaster.

    That said, I could agree with more military cooperation (on a moderate level) under certain conditions. One of those conditions would be for all European/EU countries to exit NATO.
    One worry I've been having for a long time is that America is trying to egg on Russia against Western Europe (and Western Europe against Russia). Some of the right-wing war hawks in the US seem to love the idea of a new, big conflict in (eastern) Europe. This in turn has encouraged Putin to try and widen his sphere of influence, which again leads to more conflict.
    Geopolitically, Europe has a very unfortunate position because we're stuck between countries that want to use us for their hostile plans and their own benefit.
    That's why I would like to see the EU adopt a Switzerland-like policy of (armed) neutrality. We should focus on having great diplomatic relationships with everyone but I don't think we should be America's little puppy (or Russia's enemy). Europe/the EU should be its own, politically independent entity whose army has the sole purpose of standing up against anyone that doesn't respect this.

    However, I also think that with rising right-wing extremism in Europe, we lack the kind of unity such projects afford. We'd have to get along really well with each other and currently that's not exactly the case.

    Another issue is that I see large-scale military conflicts as a lesser danger for the 21st century. I believe the largest danger we are facing is climate change. And while having an army may be a smart thing to have in this regard, it needs to be an army that is trained and equipped to deal with problems related to this (natural catastrophes, influx of refugees etc.). Climate change is not something we can fight with tanks and machine guns. So this might actually be something more akin to civil protection units than an actual military.
    LikeDisagree 7 People
    Is this still revelant?
    • Soteris

      I dont really understand your thinking here. You want a Switzerland style "armed neutrality" but you dont want a large army which kind of clashes with the idea of "armed neutrality".

    • BlueCoyote

      Yeah I guess it's a bit contradictory. So let me put it this way: at this current time, I'd rather not have any big armies. However, if we were to have one anyway, I'd be up for the idea of armed neutrality.
      I definitely think it's better to have a armed neutrality policy and a Europe-wide military then a bunch of competing national militaries. But that's naive because at this point we're unfortunately moving more towards nationalism again.

    • Soteris

      I agree with you. I see no point in having an aggressive EU army when just having a defensive one suffices and cost less.

    • Show All
  • weirdoweirdo
    Im glad my country disagrees and our current "pm" says no to this. Although depending on who become PM this time around... Well it might get through but there isn't a majority in the parliment and they are 2 anti Eu parties which have 25.5% togheter then the largest party which is just against a united army in the EU has ~29% making it a majority against it. And for the last 2 weeks I've heard gun shots and artillery because the army in my country have gotten a larger budget and is also drafting new personnel since last year and is finally fixing their problems and they have large military feild next to our town used by the military to train and it isn't some ligth guns used, no... Heavy ones. And personally Im anti EU.
    Like 3 People
    Is this still revelant?
    • Soteris

      Well I am glad for you.. Even though I have no idea which country you are from so everything you just said is virtually meaningless to me.

    • He's from Sweden

    • Soteris


    • Show All

Most Helpful Girl

  • Kelliblondebabe
    Couldn't disagree more!!! If we had a European army in 1939 I would be German! Then Ireland a very anti war country and doesn't fight any wars in fact , peacekeeping just! Then the UNELECTED BEAUCRATS In the eu would be itching for a fight and no doubt Mongolia is ripe for a victory. The French hated the British who saved their arses and the USA saved ours! RUSSIA against the USA & CHINA against the EU, Who in turn would have to seal their Russian front. which leaves the good old Canadians and aussies to help out Japan and South Korea as north Korea gets annexed by Russia. Saudi Arabia and the sunni Muslims will fight Iran and the shia's. Southern and central America will be under mob/gang rule. And the ONE country who will have staked 50/50 on the result is Israel. Welcome to the countdown to the end of time. SO NO EU ARMY
    LikeDisagree 11 People
    Is this still revelant?
    • How would you be German in that case? Oswald Mosley would have probably been dictator of the UK and the empire would still be there.

    • @esotericstory can i play the blonde card lol

    • Well, now you are going to be muslim.

    • Show All

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

  • nightdrot
    The problem is that the proposed solution puts the cart before the horse. It assumes that the existence of the tool solves the issue rather than the willingness to use the tool and it assumes a unity of identity and interest that cannot be taken for granted.

    To start, as a practical matter, any military of any effect is not just simply a group of well armed men (and women), but is a cohesive unit sharing a sense of identity and purpose. A European - presumably EU - army could not assume that. It would be composed of a variety of people speaking different languages, coming from different cultures, different religions, different habits of mind.

    That does not suggest - or it must assume - a unity of purpose and identity that would lend itself to a cohesive force. (This not even taking into account the sticky issue of conscription.) This might be overcome, but not without much time and not without cost of efficiency - as indeed, similarly situated militaries - see Afghanistan - demonstrate.

    Then there is the problem of the army's purpose. This assumes a unity of interests that does not exist in the EU among its member states. That too is problematic.

    France (and Britain - although Brexit makes that academic) still sees itself as a global power. Since World War II, Germany and Italy have shunned any global responsibilities. (Though, Italy sometimes will play a regional role as it did in Lebanon in the 80s and its former colony Libya more recently.) Poland is apt to see its central concern as being wedged between Germany and Russia. Luxembourg may not see any point in a global role.

    It has been well said that the EU has a least common denominator foreign policy supported by Potemkin village military capabilities. This is because, the EU notwithstanding, the states of Europe have not shed their specific national interests and are not likely going to be willing to sacrifice blood and treasure for matters that they see as not their concern or that conflict with other EU members.

    The bottom line is that the problem is that an EU army assumes a unity of identity and purpose that does not exist. The existence of the EU did not erase the longstanding historic interests - let alone cultures - of its member governments.

    Two world wars and a Cold War notwithstanding, those national interests are not going away. They make an EU army's purpose and usefulness problematic, let alone its creation to begin with. These things cannot be made up out of whole cloth.

    • Soteris

      First of all having a multicultural force is not impossible nor is it particularly rare in Europe. In fact the creation of such a force was even the tool to unify the Germanic peoples scattered cultures and identities to unify into what we now call "Germany" instead of uncountable territories/countries it original represented.

      As for its purpose since its an alliance force its basically exclusively a defensive force since protecting EU countries are the number one interests of EU countries and the only thing really easily agreed upon. That said it does not mean countries can't or won't have their own armies for more national concerns.

      Any global role is already taken up by the EU battle groups which go around doing things like peacekeeping.

      Also the EU has fundamentally changed people. Its just more complicated than just erasing national identities wholecloth.

    • nightdrot

      First, I did not say it was impossible. However, the costs in time and efficiency, not to say the difficulties in operational terms of coordinating equipment, training and so forth would be high and would likely limit the force's usefulness.

      Secondly, many of the states of Europe are barely maintaining one army, let alone taking on the burdens of maintaining two. So you will either end up with hollowed out forces or member states will shirk their obligations to the EU force.

      In that connection, one country's defense is likely to look to another as needlessly provocative. See also Europe's divisions over Ukraine.

      Finally, the EU's global role - in military terms - has been negligible. Peacekeeping is nice, but it does not amount to much in terms of international relations. When France intervened in Mali, it did so alone, to cite but one example.

      Bottom line, there is no will in Europe to undertake the kind of role you envision. Further, you greatly underestimate the difficulties.

    • Soteris

      What do you think EU has been doing all this time? We made the Euro-fighter and Leopard 2 arguably for this reason and we use the NATO 5.56/7.62 cartridges and all manners of agreed upon standards. We have spent years upon years making military cooperation easier and easier on operational, equipment and tactical levels.

      The contribution to the EU force would probably be extremely small since it would honestly not need that much to fulfill its basic requirement during peacetime. Its size will of course fluctuate depending on the threat level and hopefully be at full mobilization by the time a threat hits us.

      To say there is no desire for what I am proposing is misleading since the EU is actually working on something similar already.

    • Show All
  • ladsin
    Ha so you want an United States of Europe? XD Who's going to lead it? Germany? Good luck with that, I see a civil war breaking out quite quickly if Brexit doesn't go through before then.
    Like 1 Person
  • WalterRadio
    NATO is sufficient for most of EU, but NATO countries should increase their military preparedness.

    The Swiss (not EU) are quite capable of defending themselves against any attack.

    "not a big fan of military spending during peacetime"
    History proves that if a country doesn't spend big during peacetime, then they will spend in war with treasure and blood.

    Like 3 People
    • Soteris

      1: NATO is turning out to be more unreliable than first thought with for example Trump degrading the relationship between the EU and USA in a matter of a few short years as well as serious issues in cooperation during previous NATO missions.

      2: The Swiss is only capable of defending themselves because no one wants to attack them.

      3: History has proven no such thing. If anything it has proven that even the best laid plans and preparations will be completely useless in a large scale conflict that potentially spans years. A good example is just to look at the progression of both world wars and see how the world was shocked as new weapons and tactics were developed to fight wars no one had ever seen before.

    • "The Swiss is only capable of defending themselves because no one wants to attack them."
      You are incorrect. That is all I can say.

      "History has proven no such thing"
      You are incorrect. Countries do not attack other countries unless they think they can win. The US spends a great deal of money on making sure its nuclear defenses work and making it known that they do. Even bin Laden thought he could beat the US because he was working off of the memory of Jimmy Carter's incompetence.

    • Soteris

      The idea that they can win is something shared with most people or countries. I mean WW1 would be over by Christmas.

    • Show All
  • James_R
    Trump wanted NATO members to contribute 2% because that is the spending amount required by the terms of the treaty. Regarding the GDP figure, the US stands at 19.2 trillion and the EU at around 17 trillion, so no the EU is not the world's largest economy. Also, the EU can't figure out what to order for lunch let alone create a standing army that could be used for any real purpose. By that I mean there is so much paralysis at the heart of the EU decision making process. A great example are trade treaties; every nation of the block has to agree. The Walloons nearly scuppered a free trade deal with Canada that took 13 years to agree. So how on earth do you think a standing army would work? Not to mention the anti-EU sentiment would get even louder. Italy is already cagey, the Greeks are pissed at Germany, Germany has the AfD on the rise (neo nazis doing ACTUAL Heil Hitler salutes at rallies), and LePen in France will surely get more votes. The UK is nearly out now, Orban in Hungary is put on notice by the EU. You've got more countries with 100+ percent debt to GDP ratio than you don't.

    The EU is a mess and the massive entitlement spending, low growth rate, and high jobless numbers don't support an army. What enemy are you going to fight anyway? The Russians? You get all your heating gas from them! Zee Germans and the French tried to invade them and it didn't work so well. No; you all need to make nice cars, wine, cheese, clothes, and chocolate and provide a cool place for the rest of the world to vacation. Do that... no army needed.
    Like 1 Person
    • AlphaGhost

      NO the third riech will rise and US shit won't stop it,
      HAIL HITLER, HAIL NAPOLEON and our great leaders will rise from graves to lead us against Russia and Middle-East, two countries that give us oil even when China and Asia is begging for more oil AND BUY OUR SHIT TANKS and WEAPONS.
      HOW DARE THE EAST BUY FROM CHINA, when we shit on them and paralyse our army as useless with absolutely no oil for tanks BUT OUR GREAT FUHRER will lead us with panzerfaust on Donkeys cuz tanks run out of fuel.
      Idiot Eu countries and if you wan't to compete and attack only Oil producing in world with army, Good Luck with that. What could possibly go wrong?

    • AlphaGhost

      4th riche

  • FakeName123
    Countries with different cultures, views, attitudes, history should all share a single army. What could possibly go wrong?

    Not like countries in such a system could ever have a major dispute between them. lol
    Like 2 People
    • Soteris

      Ever heard of the formation of Germany? Or the USA? Or the British Empire? I could go on you know.

  • front2back
    That would be awesome, it'd be so disfunctional and underfunded that it would be easy for Eastern military powers to show dominance over it. After the first major conflict, American superiority over Europe would be cemented for yet another century after WWI.

    Or Europe could collapse into either fascism or communism yet again, that would also be an acceptable outcome.
    Like 1 Person
    • Soteris

      Good to see we got bilateral support.

  • A-man-22
    No not at all.
    This is a big reason why people don't have good hopes for the EU anymore.
    Countries like Germany and Belgium have proportionally way too much control over the other members of the EU.
    This would basic be giving you troops to Germany which is a terrible idea.
    Germany need to stop trying to control others and deal with its own problems.
    Like 2 People
    • Soteris

      So how else are things supposed to work?

    • A-man-22

      How about letting the own counties government control their own laws.

    • Soteris

      Like.. in the EU?

    • Show All
  • lorawhite14
    I think Soros paid you to write that globalist crap.
    LikeDisagree 13 People
    • Soteris

      Sadly his check bounced.

    • So will this evil shit you keep promoting for money.

    • Soteris

      Harsh words. I did spend like 30 minutes writing this you know.

    • Show All
  • grega239
    no. the eu doesn't have the right to draft anyone bcs we as citizens dont have the right to vote for who will hold the highest office of the EU.
    i personally have no loyalty to for the EU so it can fuck off.
    also, the last time i checked, the EU is falling apart.

    and every member nation already has an army so its pointless.
    Like 1 Person
    • Soteris

      ... Even if that was true, which it is not, how would that stop them from drafting anyone and why would they even need to draft anyone? Also as I have pointed out the national armies in the EU faces massive problems not to mention the fact that in the case we need to defend ourselves we would not be able to effectively combine our forces and would quite easily be destroyed one by one.

  • esotericstory
    The EU should ideally become independent from the US. This entire EU army totally useless as long as US soldiers are deployed in Germany and elsewhere in Europe due to WWII. The goal of the EU should really be European independence. Second of all, if this army is going to be deployed only for defense of European territory that would be nice, unfortunately this army will be used as expendable forces of the US so that the US can continue to play world police.
    Like 1 Person
    • Soteris

      Completely possible but considering the tattered EU-USA relations I doubt the EU will follow USA's requests in the near future.

    • I sure hope so.

    • The EU was created by the same gang that rules America:) The EU will never be independent, its whole purpose is to serve globalist world conquest. Europe can be independent if the EU is dismantled.

    • Show All
  • sawno
    We should NOT have a European army, that is one step closer to the end of freedom of the citizens and the abolishment of our nations. We need a good JOINT army, where every nation has a strong force and we use it combined. How else would we need to defend ourselves against Brussels if we want out of this terrible totalitarian regime?
    Like 1 Person
  • tartaarsaus
    I am not sure about this.

    I do recognize the fact that Europe needs to be less dependent on the USA and that European armies are in quite a poor state right now (for example, zero submarines of Germany working). Both of those things NEED to be refctified. We cannot always assume the USA will be there to protect the rest of NATO and in the long term, the national army needs to have a higher state of readiness.

    So I do think that European nations need to increase military spending, at least for the sake of replacing old equipment and getting combat readiness of equipment up.

    But then we get in a scenario of game theory. Any potential adversary is absolutely forced to also increase military spending in order to compensate for European increased expenditure, because their losses if they don't would be much higher. This in it's turn can create more or less an arms race (like we see in the Middle East between Saudi-Arabia, Israel and Iran). Though, I don't expect Russia to have the economic power to compete.

    Anyway, now that I do think that increased spending is necessary, why or why not would a European army be a good idea? Integrating services and industries could be good to make European military products more competitive and increase the industry, which results in more money.

    Furthermore, it would probably likely lead to increased efficiency if they were under the helm of the same military, rather than different militaries being forced to work together (which could cost valuable time in times). I think that is the main advantage. It could result in a more efficient allocation of military resources (both in acquiring military vehicles and deploying them) in times when they are needed.

    But in order for it to work, European nations need to be more united. With the right and Euroskepticism rising in many European nations I honestly don't see how a European army could be orchestrated.
    • Soteris

      First of all from what i have looked into its not actually an issue of insufficient military funding but a question of where the money disappears to because its not doing what it is supposed to do. Countries such as Germany could maintain about the same military spending while having a perfectly adequate combat ready force.

      As for the problems with national armies they are often not located where they need to be. Germany for example is located in the middle of Europe with almost no direct threat anywhere near it while Poland is borders two external countries and Finland borders Russia just as an example. A national army does not necessarily have the same priorities as an alliance army.

      Also I agree that the Euro-skepticism would be an issue but not something that could not be solved.

    • Also, are people likely to enlist to defend a European army? I don't know if people have as warm feelings to the rest of Europe than specifically their nation. I don't think most people call themselves 'European' rather than 'Italian'.

      Another aspect, each country has its own interest and deals with a different situation.

      I could see two things happening.

      Either individual nations remain significant autonomy in allocating their military in order to combat their regional interests (such as Italy on the Mediterranean), which ultimately could mean - if all countries do this - that the main goal of the European army gets clouded.

      Or another option is that countries lose their autonomy in deploying military, which would make it even more unlikely that countries that Italy would commit to a European army.

    • @Soteris

      Hmmm, some military purchases such as the F-35 are just inherently very expensive and therefore require additional funding.

      But you do make a good point, where does the money go? But then the question is, how would that inefficient allocation of money be resolved in a European army? I'm not sure. Often it has to do with incorrect estimates in setting up contracts, accidents, actually poor funding or ego by ministers.

      Indeed, national armies are often not placed in optimal locations. But that could be solved by setting up military bases in Poland and stationing other soldiers there.

      And that lack of aligned priorities could be a problem for entry; why would a country enter an alliance army if that meant losing the control of where to allocate its troops? The threat of your priorities being neglected is real.

  • zeew1234
    This is a terrible idea, and I will break down your argument.
    "The problem with NATO however is that not all EU nations are part of it and its reliability has become questionable ever since Trump became president."
    NATO isn't just the USA, there are other countries in NATO than in the EU, such as: Lithuania, Latvia, Iceland, Estonia, Canada, Turkey, and there are many more close NATO allies. Simply thinking that NATO is unreliable because Trump is in power is stupidly naive, and shows you don't really understand the nature of the alliance. Even if the USA wasn't a member of NATO, it would still be stronger than an EU army.

    "It is a sprawling and confusing mess to untangle as its still being worked on to this day but two parts of it stand out in particular." The common security and defense policy was setup in 2009. Even after all this time, they still cannot get their security policy setup, a small task, why do you think they would be able to work on something bigger such as an army?

    "These groups are basically volunteered by cooperating nations and meant to handle small scale disturbances and natural disasters."
    Define 'small scale disturbances' because the only disturbances I can imagine, is anti-EU sentiment in a country, and then soldiers being sent in to quell it, like in the Soviet bloc. The EU has shown itself to be authoritarian, until they get what they want. Such as calling for votes multiple times until they get a favorable outcome, amending legislation to push through reforms that were otherwise denied, etc. The EU wants the EU to survive, just like the USSR did.

    "Not exactly, even though most EU nations fall short of the 2% magical number that Trump likes to bring up they are still spending an astronomical sum on their military."
    2% of their GDP isn't much to ask for when you compare it to the massive welfare state that say Germany has. They realistically aren't paying that much money when you look at their total GDP. The 2% isn't just a 'magical number' it's an agreed value that each member state will pay towards their defense.

    "The only real issue here is that the money is still rolling in and we are not getting the bang for our buck so to speak."
    The problem is, that governments aren't willing to invest much into their military (Germany), when they can spend their money on welfare.

    1 of 2 comments
    Like 2 People
    • zeew1234

      2 of 3 comments.

      "So what is really going on here since we obviously have some horrible problem behind the scenes."
      The command structure that we have developed and the military high command which has been refined throughout the entire cold war is perfectly fine, but there is no political will to spend money on defense when there is no real threat to Europe. But I agree the problem is politics.

      "its also not that easy to convince a nation that instead of focusing on a national army they should invest in an alliance army."
      It's not that easy to convince a country to give up their sovereignty, yes.

      "Currently there is not a need to mobilize a proper army to defend the EU so minimizing military spending is a worthwhile goal."
      Current German military spending is at a massive low, and they're hardly able to operate their limited aircraft and navy, is this the kind of low spending you would like?

    • zeew1234

      3 of 4 comments.

      "Having the Army there as a rapid response force is already useful but the real value is in how quick and efficient an EU army could be mobilized inside"
      We already have that within the EU, like you mentioned earlier we have the EU battle groups.

      "allow us to stand up to any future threat that the EU might face."
      The only threats to the EU currently are cyber attacks. There will never be a land invasion into Europe like the Soviets were planning, the continent is too interconnected for that.

      An EU army is simply a power grab for Germany and France. I would imagine that all EU army equipment will be 'in house' which will benefit the struggling French and German military complex immensely. Even with current UK and French spending, they cannot effectively fight wars abroad without US support, and your comments on cutting spending would diminish that capability even further. Furthermore there is no real threat to Europe, except cyber

    • zeew1234

      4 of 4.

      except cyber- threats. These kinds of threats don't require an 'EU army' to counteract. China won't threaten the EU because they're massive trading partners, and Russia has a pitiful conscript army filled with soviet era equipment. Unless Russia can triple the size of their economy, there's nothing to worry about.

      So now that we've cleared up that there's no actual threats to Europe, what would an EU army be used for? It's pretty obvious that it would be used to stop anti-EU sentiment growing in countries.

      TDLR: The EU wants more power than they currently have, and they want to diminish sovereignty of member states further.

    • Show All
  • NormaTavish
    I had this conversation with someone online the other day so here's my opinion for what its worth and its simple, Europe is the most political correct bureaucratic system on the planet. It would be the fairest most politically correct Military Force ever created, and that's why it wouldn't work.
    • Soteris

      Not entirely sure what you mean with that. First of all there is nothing politically correct with the EU (Europe is different btw). Secondly the job of a EU military if it was ever to exist would be to identify vulnerabilities and possible threats to members and work to secure them using pooled resources from all members as well as provide an infrastructure which could be used to unify military efforts in case of a war. At no point does politics enter the picture nor bureaucracy really.

    • To say that "At no point does politics enter the picture nor bureaucracy really" when it comes to forming a European Military just unrealistic, military forces are key to a countrys infrastructure, they are very expensive and very political and require political motivation to sell it to each countrys native population.

      My point on Europe being politically correct is where I get your point about Europe not being politicaly correct in many areas, it has a need over the years to be seen a as politically correct, the constant interference off ECJ in the member country's affairs is what I think would slow the process to a halt costing vast amounts off time, bureaucracy and more importantly money. The opinions on military intervention would never be able to be synchronised over all member states and as in many other cases it would come down to a few main contributors within the EU family.

      The concept is fine the reality off implementing it is just not realistic.

    • I'll get off my soap box now lol...

    • Show All
  • howarth2469
    I think there should be a miltary force designed to combat any know threat to any country that is not in nato or that could be a threat to nato basically a nato like army but its full of sas marines that sort of thing so its highly trained soldiers that have the skills to work together and eliminate threats to the countrys in nato
    • Soteris

      That is neither what the EU needs or wants. We ultimately just want a reliable security to fall back on while still having the minimum amount of military spending.

    • Um it is what they need ud clearly stupid they dont give a fuck about money they will just raise the taxes like the scum of the earth they are

    • Soteris

      No they dont. Eu countries has consistently lowered military spending since the cold war because its not politically popular which is partially why the armies within the EU is in such a sorry state.

    • Show All
  • andreasderjuengere
    I actually cannot be bothered with which flag waves at my house. As long as I do have a house. I don't like the government of my native country - so why would I like some other government less? Military for disaster relief is a good thing though.
    I agree with the idea to quit the NATO - or better disband it - it has outlived its initial purpose. Seeing Trump's antics, I'd feel better to be on a distance when he breaks a conflict off the fence.
    Like 1 Person
  • jjjulez27
    i think this will just create conflict in a very peaceful group of countries
    Like 1 Person
    • Soteris

      That is a fair point but on the flip side there is already a lot of conflicts as it is and Europe is not really able to handle it. A good example is the frequent airspace violations done by Russian military planes or the abyssal performance during various middle eastern missions.

  • dano65
    I think that the EU wants an army to prevent member states from leaving as some want to do that. Just look at recent elections. Nationalism is apparently on the rise, for now, at least. They do not need an army because of the U. S. Trump just wants wealthy European nations to pay more for their defense. I wouldn't mind if the U. S. pulled the troops out of Europe. It might be better for diplomacy and peace all together.
    Like 1 Person
  • 19magic
    No it would give too much weight to one union, it's bad enough the power they have already. No one challenges the EU and all it takes is one corrupt group and boom everything is in ashes. The way it is now I most preferable than having one United army since any problem has many outlets which means each country army can take care of each situation. Then you also have the fact that different countries has different skill, different resilience to things and could make a United army weaker if there was to be a selection of members or numbers. Then you have different countries has varying sizes of armies, if you think back to the second world war before France signed the paper to Germany they had almost 2 to 1 compared to the German army and Belgium in WW1 were very outnumbered but still fought. So I just wouldn't think it'll be right
    LikeDisagree 5 People
    • You realize that eventually Brussels isn't going to tolerate this euroscepticism and clinging to even small bits of national sovereignty. They're already spooked by Brexit.

    • 19magic

      @ManFrom1982 they're spooked because they're worried they're wrong, how many countries has gone bankrupt already, if one of the power horses leave how are they going to continue to say it will be better. It's just shitty government that's leering the country down at the moment

  • Salty-Walrus
    NATO is specifically designed for countering Russia's movements. What motive would China have to go to war with the EU?

    You have no threats and no justification to rally forces. All this would do is cause your other nations to counter your troop build up with their own, which would set the grounds for another world war. Hope the EU isn't that dumb.
    • Soteris

      China's good relationship is designed to counter USA, Australia, Canada and Europes alliance. China has also actively interfered with EU matters both on a political scale and doing things like kidnapping, torturing and murdering our civilians. They have also threatened our friends, taken over territories that further infringes upon our friends and generally been colossal dictatorial and oppressive assholes.

      China is also building a huge army to intimidate the rest of the world and using investments and loans into other countries to corrupt them into becoming China's puppets.

      Suffice to say just the little I have mentioned gives EU enough reasons to at least want to secure its borders.

  • ManFrom1982
    TL;DR version: the reason the EU needs one is the same reason it won't work. The EU's current version is managed the same way it manages everything else, by Byzantine and balkanized bureaucracies.
    • Soteris

      What you just said makes literally no sense.

  • ThisAndThat
    Are you for a NWO one world government mark of the beast? That's what you're advocating for.
    Like 1 Person
    • He certainly gets his check from them:)

    • Soteris

      Exactly! Because that makes so much more sense then the fact that Europe will have to be on the same side in any conflict in the future.

    • Europe will be on the side of Europe only when the globalists and their anti-European EU project is dead and buried. The EU exists to destroy Europeans and enslave them.

    • Show All
  • WhitePanther88
    Sounds like the fourth Reich. I'd rather not have to storm the beaches of Normandy like my great grandfather did.
    I'm sure Germany has the pazers on standby.
    https://youtu.be/-mOdJj2tRMwhttps://youtu.be/Xosp-rJ0ySIWhy I Think the EU Should Create an European ArmyWhy I Think the EU Should Create an European Army
    Like 3 People
  • MarketData
    Anything that stops Trump bitching about how much America pays for NATO.
    Disagree 2 People
    • Soteris

      USA pays just as much as anyone else though? That 2% number he brings up is not going to NATO but how much countries should spend on their own military to be "ready" in case something were to happen.

  • jacquesvol
    • Soteris

      I did talk about that in the introduction and why I dont think its enough in its current form.

    • jacquesvol

      In its current form it's not as aggressive as the orange lame duck wants it to be.

    • Soteris

      In its current form it is meant for mainly peaceful missions such as assisting during natural disasters and they are not equipped or intended to defend EU against a hostile nation.

    • Show All
  • taleswapper
    Rubbish. You are starting at gnats. The EU has no need for a strong military precisely BECAUSE it has both internal cooperation of the member states and few outside threats. So what, exactly, do you need it for? A drain on the economies? Outside trade is protected by the US Navy and its global reach. The very fractured nature helps keep expenses down, and prevents the EU from becoming a single political state, eliminating the governments of the member states. An overreaching command structure would only serve to distance the soldiers from their homelands; great if you're talking about forcibly combining them, but otherwise pointless.
    Like 1 Person
  • TsubasaCorrupted
    I think it's a pretty good idea but we need to keep the soldiers orders from their home countries in mind, and who leads them and their ideologies.
  • Jamie05rhs
    I don't know if I agree with this or not, but it was an interesting read.
  • Guanfei
    No thanks. An european army is basically leaving our own security in the hands of the EU, which isn't interested in european people well-being but in profits and power.
    All that would do is that the EU would threaten any country that doesn't bend the knee to leave it without any security.
    Or worse, since once they have the army in their hand, they basically have the power. Which wouldn't leave any possibility for any country to take its own decision.

    The EU is already a totalitarian institution today, who doesn't care much about sovereignty or independence of its members. Giving it more power would just be saying we dismantle every nation within it and give all the power to it.
    We don't need more EU. We need less.
    • Soteris

      Aside from your complete lack of understanding of what the EU is and how it works.. You do realize that this does not mean countries can't have their own armies right? It just means that instead of for example Finland having to hold its borders alone against someone like Russia they could receive assistance from other EU nations that does not need as much protection themselves because they may for example be Germany in the middle of Europe with no important borders to hold.

    • Guanfei

      Which is already the case, most european armies are already collaborating. No need to hand it over to the EU.
      Also, I know how EU works. Or is supposed to work. Except that in reality it doesn't work like that. Behind every decision, there are lobbies. Banks, big companies politicians... If a country doesn't agree with what the EU... "suggest", he'll be sanctioned. You either obey or the EU will make sure you'll regret it.
      The EU isn't what it's supposed to be. Not anymore. It holds too much economical and political power, which it shouldn't. Even here in France, most of the laws we vote aren't ours, but EU laws we just vote. Between 80 and 85% of the laws we vote here come from the EU. Immigration, economy, even social, all of this should be in our own hands, but it's not.

  • Tron5678
    EU- lets form an EU army
    Russia: that's cute lol
    Like 1 Person
    • Soteris

      Last time I checked France and Germany could field a larger army than Russia by themselves. Not to say they have but they could if they wanted to. Russia is actually not all that powerful, especially now when most of its military is obsolete and needs retraining.

    • Tron5678

      Russian military is obsolete? France and Germany could take on Russia lol that's just wishful thinking.

    • Show All
  • Nadim171
    The European union is a communist Muslim colony
    LikeDisagree 5 People
    • Soteris

      Pretty sure that is an oxymoron.

    • Not really. In fact, it is a zionist-communist-muslim entity. In the globalist world, capitalists and communists collide. Antifa is funded by Soros, the corporations back the now outright socialist Democrats, and the Cultural Marxist narrative is pushed by the capitalists. There is an unholy union of globalists and communists, and they bring in muslims so they can destabilize western society even more.

    • Soteris

      @lorawhite14 But.. Communism is left wing and Islam is right wing and the European union is not a colony... Its just wrong on basically every single word.

    • Show All
  • Secretgardenblood
    Nice take
    LikeDisagree 2 People
  • Nachowedgie
    What an absolutely terrible idea
    Like 2 People
  • Wolframium
    I agree.
    Like 1 Person
  • Mexicoman101
    If you like tyranny, yeah.
    Like 2 People
  • DesertCreature
    Bad idea that will only serve to weaken the EU.
  • SwoleCook
    The euro is already shit bro
    LikeDisagree 3 People
    • In what way is the Euro as a currency shit?

    • SwoleCook

      Too much instability in Europe and it affects everyone. Like Greece is fucking all of Europe with their shit economy

  • Anonymous
    Waaaaaait wait wait WAAAAIT!!! Sloooowdown now. Ok. Let me get this straight... You seem... Conservative no? The whole "its ok to be white" anti sjw stuff. Yet you fully back the EU and are not as trusting of the US under Trump? Im just trying to get a feel of this cause im an American and conservative in america is a bit different. Im still trying to figure outhow exactly because ik the eu plus britain I guess each has their own similarities and diffs. I dont disagree nessacerily on an EU army as I think eventually the US could just be a regular ally again after 2020. Even with trump if russia and china came together you know full well the us would run with the EU whethertrump loves it or not. He does NOT like china. The little disputes with the EU are tiny in comparison.
    • Soteris

      To start with I do not really consider myself anything but definitely not conservative. If you are American then I would probably be more left wing than Bernie Sanders wettest dream but its honestly more complicated than that.

      As for Trump he is not exactly the main problem as much as just an indication. Considering how easily Trump changed the course of the entire USA from one day to another and severely jeopardized US-EU relations its not that difficult to imagine it happening again and perhaps worse this time.

      The predictability of USA and its foreign policy is straight out the window and if you can't trust USA which portray themselves as a shining beacon of hope and democracy then whats not to say our other allies does something equally stupid next?

      Also "the little dispute with the EU" is not tiny. Its something that will define a whole generations opinion of the other at the very least.

    • Anonymous

      Gotchya. I'm unsure, but I think Trump is kinda a temporary thing. Kinda hope so. I don't mind a left or right wing govt, just keep it balanced and restore a bit of normal order. I think many Americans are ready for that. And more left than Bernie... yah... its funny how people call him communist isn't it? You probably laugh hard at that claim. I think many in the US even ones close to Trump knows the US' important position and will make it only go so far. Bu again, if the EU really do pursue a sort of united army, I can't blame y'all. It seems some members of the EU could use a unication boost anyways. *cough Poland

    • Soteris

      Honestly I and many Europeans can't really relate with USA's anti-communist knee jerk reaction. Sure Communism is pretty bad but going around labeling everything as "communism" and thinking anyone cares is weird. As for Trump and his effect on American politics I personally believe this will massively backfire on the Republicans as they made their side far too fired up over something that is not delivering for them. Once everything comes crashing down on Trumps head one way or another the trust in the Republican party is probably going to go down with Trump and I doubt they will have much luck standing up to the Democrats in the next 50 years as their snubbed supporters gives up on politics.

      As for the White house government staff.. You have more faith in them than I do.

    • Show All
  • Anonymous
    Delusions of grandeur, just like the EUs grandiose agenda/ambition to become a federated union of nations who would subordinate their sovereignty to Brussels

    If I were European I much prefer to put my faith in Nato --- a European Army would be effectively controlled by Germany & France, who totally control the EU

    Nato also includes the US, the UK, and Canada, and thus is a much more powerful miltary entity... it's structure includes not only the armies of the member nations but also their navies, air forces, marines

    Do you seriously believe the 27 EU nations (post-Brexit) will ever set up a single European Army, a Navy, an Air Force?

    Dream on !
    Like 1 Person
  • Anonymous
    Is it 1939 all over again?
    Like 2 People
    • Soteris

      If it was, is Europe prepared?

    • Anonymous

      Germany just has a new plan to unite Europe under them.

    • Soteris

      That has literally been the plan of every European nation to date.

    • Show All
  • Anonymous
    I think we should create army and destroy world so i can die and not go to school anymore. Thanks!!
    Like 1 Person
  • Anonymous
    Excellent idea, it would be like new Triple Entente.
    • You mean central powers.

    • Anonymous

      @WhitePanther88 No, Central powers were bad. European army would include France, UK and other EU countries, right? I mean, Germany would be a member too, but it's no longer German empire.

    • The UK wants out of the EU, France is the most powerful military in Europe but may not want to lose sovereign control of its military to a German dominated EU.

    • Show All