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.

Introduction

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.


0|1
837

Most Helpful Girl

  • 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

    0|8
    1|1
    • 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.

    • Show All
    • Don't forget that the Soviets were a great help to the U. S. and U. K. during WWII as far as fighting the Germans was concerned. The Russian Imperial Navy also assisted the Union on the high seas during the U. S. Civil War as well.

    • @dano65 well actually the Soviets helped start ww2 by allying themselves with Germany to invade Poland.
      The real drive now is for oil and mineral resources from central Asia in exchange for manufactuered goods and infastructure projects with Russia, China, the EU and the US looking for as much as the pie as possible. The US can only access via Afganistan, China is in the east, Russia in the north and Iran to the west.

Most Helpful Guys

  • 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.

    0|2
    0|2
    • 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".

    • Show All
    • @BlueCoyote, Dont talk about topics you know nothing about.

  • 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.

    1|1
    0|0

Recommended myTakes

Loading...

Join the discussion

What Girls Said 7

  • I think Soros paid you to write that globalist crap.

    0|7
    1|4
    • Sadly his check bounced.

    • Show All
    • @ThisAndThat
      I don't really get what you're talking about.

    • @BlueCoyote The globalist are depending on the masses accepting their agenda.

  • 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.

    0|0
    0|0
    • 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.

    • Show All
    • Because the military would be under the EU its somewhat removed both from the cost but also from the politics of the country they potentially deploy in. It would be very hard for any politician or country to influence the EU army since their budget is secured by the EU as a whole and they answer to everyone equally and without such a consensus they operate under their own jurisdiction according to preset priorities and rules.

      As for the ECJ it is actually a massive time saver. Usually these disputes between countries has to be solved by diplomacy which can take literally forever where as the ECJ simply follows the rule of law.

    • If a "European Army" is under the EU directive then it still has to be financed, this means participating member states are paying more to maintain it, some more than others. You can not remove Politics from war, as much as you want to, and believe it should be (which I agree with) war is entirely political. I think the flaw in your argument which you seem to have a good grasp off knowledge wise beyond me, isn't what should be but what is feasible. You will not get a country like the UK, or France to deploy their sovereign military citizens to a conflict zone that there population disagrees with or puts that sovereign nations security at risk for an EU directive. I think the best way to look at the EU is its an agreement between nations, and not a cohesive federal union like the USA where they consider themselves American wither Texan or Alaskan, Europe will always be individual sovereign nations, and sovereign nations put there own interested first.

  • 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

    0|3
    1|0
    • 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.

    • @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

  • i think this will just create conflict in a very peaceful group of countries

    0|0
    0|0
    • 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.

  • Nice take

    0|1
    0|0
  • Is it 1939 all over again?
    https://youtu.be/Oz8ll7pT8fA

    0|1
    0|0
    • If it was, is Europe prepared?

    • Show All
    • That's a lot. He also had to conquer his brothers as his father divided up his kingdom

    • He maybe expanded the empire by 1/3rd?

  • Excellent idea, it would be like new Triple Entente.

    0|0
    0|0
    • You mean central powers.

    • Show All
    • You guys crying about Germanic and Frech-Anglo speaking tribes and one conquering other for GoD know Why?
      Thanks for informing me about this cuz I am looking forward to get rid of this shit convo.

    • @AlphaGhost You are very welcome :D

What Guys Said 35

  • 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.

    0|1
    0|0
  • 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.

    0|1
    0|0
    • 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?

  • 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.

    0|2
    0|0
    • 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.

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

    • "idea that they can win is something shared"
      You misunderstand. Venezuela is not going to invade Texas. They know they can't possibly win.

      Saddam Hussein thought he could defeat Kuwait. He was correct. What Hussein didn't realize is that the US+ would defend Kuwait. Hussein never would have attacked the US. He spent a great deal of effort trying to make his country look stronger than it was.

      This is basic Sun Tsu.

  • 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.

    0|0
    0|0
    • 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.

    • Show All
    • There are different ways to be political. One and the one I prefer the most is actually using reason such as "Lets increase taxes to pay for veteran care because they sacrificed for our country."

      Another one for example is "Lets cut taxes for the rich because America". It does not really make logical sense but it uses emotions and such.

      Lastly there is the populist way which often comes down to trying to turn the election into a popularity contest and damn be the politics of the situation. I mean you could have good politics but its not really the point people care about.

      As for Poland trying to get a permanent US base in Poland. If anything it goes to show that they really want to give USA a good reason to intervene in case of a conflict instead of having to rely on USA's word it would. As for the changing NATO the fact that all of them are against it also speaks volumes.

      As for the UK its probably the least changed country in the EU and our version of USA. Thats an insult.

    • Yes, on your second point, that is exactly what it is intended to do - going back to the origins of NATO. "Keep the Russians out, the AMERICANS IN, and the Germans down." You are recurring to history but seem not to recognize it.

      As to your first point, you have defined populism down to the point of being meaningless. In what democratic context are appeals not made to popular opinion. You write, "Lastly there is the populist way which often comes down to trying to turn the election into a popularity contest and damn be the politics of the situation."

      Be damn the politics of the situation? Explain that. When is politics not politics? No issue or policy option can be implemented without recurrence to popular approval or at least deference? That is, by definition, what politics is all about.

      As to your last point, you are back to epithets as an alternative to a reasoned argument. In any case, to borrow from Ellen Glasgow, "All change is not progress as all movement is not forward."

  • 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.

    0|2
    0|0
    • So how else are things supposed to work?

    • Show All
    • Like.. in the EU?

    • The EU doesn't let countries control all of their laws.

      A big example is immigrant intake.
      This is one of the reasons Britain voted leave.
      The UK was set a target from the EU to accept an amount of immigration
      However the UK is a small country compared to France and Germany but was expected to take way too many immigrants.

      This had a seriously bad effect on Britain but the EU failed to listen to our want to reduce the amount of immigration.

  • 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.

    0|1
    0|0
  • 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

    0|1
    0|0
    • Ever heard of the formation of Germany? Or the USA? Or the British Empire? I could go on you know.

  • 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.

    0|1
    0|0
    • ... 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.

  • 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.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Completely possible but considering the tattered EU-USA relations I doubt the EU will follow USA's requests in the near future.

    • Show All
    • @lorawhite14 If we cannot turn the EU into a patriotic institution, it must be destroyed and a patriotic version will have to be created. We need an institution to oversee European solidarity and brotherhood so that we do not fall into brotherwars again. Europe is only strong if we dont fight each other.

  • 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

    0|1
    0|0
    • 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?

    • Show All
    • 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.

    • Turns out you're unable to edit comments, which is why the comment numbers increase as I continue commenting. I initially wanted to keep this brief, but got carried away.

  • 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.

    0|0
    0|0
    • 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.

  • 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?

    0|0
    0|0
  • 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.

    0|1
    0|0
  • 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.

    0|1
    0|0
  • 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.

    0|0
    0|0
  • 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.

    0|0
    0|0
    • 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.

  • Are you for a NWO one world government mark of the beast? That's what you're advocating for.

    1|0
    0|0
    • He certainly gets his check from them:)

    • Show All
    • @lorawhite14 This was the exact reason I voted for Trump and will continue to do so.

    • @lorawhite14 National sovereignty, AMEN to that.

  • 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

    0|0
    0|0
    • 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.

  • Anything that stops Trump bitching about how much America pays for NATO.

    0|0
    0|1
    • 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.

  • 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-rJ0ySI

    1|1
    0|0
  • 0|0
    0|0
    • I did talk about that in the introduction and why I dont think its enough in its current form.

    • Show All
    • The UK itself got convinced to buy American

    • I think it was less a convincing as Britain was heavily involved in pushing the development to maintain technological advantage.

  • 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.

    0|1
    0|0
  • I don't know if I agree with this or not, but it was an interesting read.

    0|0
    0|0
  • 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.

    0|0
    0|0
  • 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.

    0|0
    0|0
    • 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.

    • 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.

  • The European union is a communist Muslim colony

    1|1
    0|2
    • Pretty sure that is an oxymoron.

    • Show All
    • @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.

    • Islam is there just to create chaos and undermine cohesion. They are using it as a weapon. And the global elites have struck a deal with communists to create a kind of global socialist system with them on top and masses below, who will get a bunch of free stuff and be controlled by a large police force. They want to destroy nationalism and white people as a cohesive force. Once they have a rootless, mixed population of consumers, they think they can manage ruling over it and maintain high status, living in gated communities.

  • EU- lets form an EU army
    Russia: that's cute lol

    1|0
    0|0
    • 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.

    • Show All
    • @tartaarsaus Wow!! Those will be so cool for the 5 minutes until you can't properly maintain them and the enemy finds a way to bypass all your expensive stealth technology!

    • @Soteris the USA has a combat ready rate of 50% on its F-22 so, maybe Russia at 60%, that means Russia would have 7 of those shiny planes.

      That will really change the tide of the war!

  • What an absolutely terrible idea

    0|1
    0|0
  • I agree.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Bad idea that will only serve to weaken the EU.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Show more from Guys
    5

Recommended Questions

Loading...