Honestly, I don't think that would be a good idea.
Moreover, it is rather a French dream shared by no other European country which considers that NATO is largely sufficient.
I must admit that I do not understand why French presidents and even French presidential candidates all talk about the need to create a "Europe of defence".
The problem is that a European military is a solution that 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) is still - and 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 at all.
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.
P. S. By the way, just to add that your political leaders are not totally off the wall, do keep in mind that an EU that focuses on foreign and defense policy questions will be an EU that TENDS to be dominated by France. Whereas an EU that focuses on economic and trade questions will TEND to be dominated by Germany.
Recall that France wanted the "euro" - Germany only reluctantly accepted it as the price of European unity - because it wanted a say in German economic policy. In terms of foreign and defense policy, the member states will TEND to look to France for leadership and this will give Paris a dominant position within the EU.
This is the old Franco-German rivalry being played out, albeit more peacefully and within the context of "European unity." It being recalled that there is within most states of Europe a constituency - mostly but not entirely on the political left - for a "United States of Europe." Otherwise, the old balance of power game is still there, sub rosa.
Anyhow, this is all VERY subtle and under the radar. Inherent in European politics and not necessarily explicit. However, that is what French leaders, in varying degrees, have been doing since 1945 and especially since the end of the Cold War.
So with your politicians and leaders - be gentle. (Yes, that last line was a joke.)
But it is still a pity that the French elites do not understand that their European defense projects do not appeal to anyone in Europe.
And to be honest with you, I fully understand the other European countries, because first of all there is NATO and quite simply the other European countries are not stupid and understand very well that a European army would actually be an army French but financed by European countries.
So I find it strange that our elites do not understand this and persist in this way.
The first time I heard of the United States of Europe was from Victor Hugo, during his speech at the Peace Congress. Incredible speech, but totally naive, it would almost be a Wilsonian speech lol. Victor Hugo was a great writer but honestly in Politics it was a disaster
And I hope you and your family are doing well. Take care of you. 😊
Do not forget it will take them years to figure who is going to give the commands to the troops. Who will it be in charge France, Italy, Germany or any other E. U. country? By the time they figure it out they will have lost.
The reasons why a common European army is or is not a good idea lie solely and exclusively with Europeans, certainly not with the Americans. Indeed, seeing the comments that are here, I think you shit on yourself just thinking about the existence of a common European army. If you are against the European Union, I expect you to dissolve the United States and your army as well. Otherwise, shut up.
A Common European Army it is a good idea for Europeans. It is a problematic idea for the US. It is a bad idea for the Russians, for the Chinese.
If until recently I thought that a single European army would not have happened today, I hope it will be done as soon as possible. In the same way that until the American attack led by the Quantum fund on the EMS the euro would not have been made.
A few years ago, we started talking about the European army. Ever since Trump demobilized a large part of the American bases in Europe. If the Americans don't want to die for Europe. Instead, they look to the Pacific chessboard. It is therefore necessary to create a European army.
The Russian-Ukrainian crisis has awakened the pro-European resurgence for the constitution of a common army of the Union which had been silenced by the anti-European propaganda of Putin and Donald the Putin’s puppet. The last generations of Europeans have deluded themselves that they can live in a Europe without war.
Hitler had that idea, his idea of europeans was blonde haired and blue eyed dominant Europe. I find that pretty much horrific. Each european country is different and separate and should remain so just like it has been for well over a thousand years.
It is the millennial dream of the majority of European countries to unify the continent. Hitler didn't invent anything, he just added a monstrous ideology.
Well, perhaps it would be if all of its members actually held up to their commitments. Historically, only the US, usually the UK, and sometimes Greece actually did. The war in Ukraine has acted as sort of a kick in the pants especially for the former eastern bloc countries and Germany, so maybe for once it'll be a serious organization.
An EU army would not work especially if it's independent of NATO commitments. Even NATO really only functions because of the United States; the EU does not have anything close to good enough logistics capabilities even when pooling their resources, and mobilizing in defense of each other would be a newsworthy clusterf*CK.
Its really a necessity now due to Putin/Russia's behaviour.
Obviously Russia doesn't want it, as the EU would eventually overshadow Russia militarily, whereas right now the EU just eclipses Russia economically and in population.
Not sure about the US government opinion, they bitch about having to defend Europe in recent years, but Conservative US politicians seem to prefer a weaker EU, thus why Trump supported UK leaving. This perhaps shows they fear it evolving into a rival, more so an economic rival.
I neither think it´s a good idea because it would many more questions like who´s taking the lead, who pays for it? What language is spoken in the army and how many soldiers shall be in there? Also as especially German and Spanish and especially south American history have shown big armies can become a problem for democracies because Hitler and Franco and all those dictators in South America were heavily supported by the army and its status in societies. An European army could lead to an European state that´s controllable and wouldn´t solve more problem than it creates.
Army's - or military in general - meanwhile is the public relations branch of a country's military industry. ''They'' want to sell. And they only do so if a sufficient number of people feels... unsafe. Let them shoot around. The REAL enemy is your online advertiser :)
You simplified things, right? Of course the arms industry needs to sell and governments need to buy, but noticed that it is not in Europe that they get richer the most.
The USA, China, Russia, and to be quite honest France, are really the only interesting countries for the military industry.
How can I NOT simplify? Military -or war- is simple in itself: a violent method is chosen when leading minds fail to 'negotiate' or to interact - that's simple ''thinking'', too :)
My native area has seen a number of rulers over the years; it did not change the people who were bossed around by 'intruders'. To be bossed around by your own guys isn't any better. I'm of course willing to defend my house and garden; but who rules ''my'' country does not matter to me. That's why I -personally- don't need or want an army to ''defend me''; I will always be myself.
Amarican Nato leadership is always pissed to the gills dealing with other nato allies not meeting there minimal by GDP requirements for defense spending. So an independent military is a good way to shore that up.
It could even be national guard of sorts helping with natural disasters overall and could be ready to help nato at any moment.
America it would be good as we wouldn't have to spend so much of our money defending them, and they might be more useful in helping us.
Europe it kind of depends, their power hungry EU leader certainly would like an army to throw their weight around the world an maybe even threaten European States they disagree with. Europeans probably not.
10.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
You're not the brightest, then.
The Eurofighter is the best military craft in NATO, and the EU provides most of the backbone for NATO. By making an EU army it would make NATO defunct,
Europe is in a much better place than the US. Thus NATO is becoming more a problem and less useful to the EU.
I'm against it. Europe is nothing like the US. Europe has more history than importing slaves for labor. I believe that the majority of Europeans are against such an idea because of national identity. Call patriotism or nationalism bad all you want, but ultimately humans want to brand themselves with something. And more importantly, I don't want another tax to pay.
I am Turkish. We will consider it as a threat if countries like greece, bulgaria etc. will be a part of it Nato would not let this to be a reality either so do russia
No Nato and a combined military is enough, no independent troops are needed. That is more a risk than a benefit. They would be mercenaries and we know how those turn out.
Ha... Like if NATO would make that possible in the first place. I don't see that happening ever. It would take out so much resources from Europe; to the point where education system would decrease in quality.
So the question becomes, who commands it? An army needs to be quick and decisive, with a strong chain of command. You can't gather up the whole of the EU for every decision and no EU country should lead another, that will bring conflict.
The European army was wanted by France and Germany no one else in the EU had any real passion for it, and if it worked the same way as the EU parliament then nothing would ever be done.
No, people in EU have a lot of differences despite being members of the union. An army with such different people wouldn't succeed and would easily have traitors.
No the Italian armed forces is shit which is crazy because you’d think a country with such notorious gang history wouldn’t have such pansy ass milk toast fruitcake soldiers
2
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
+1 y
No. Europe has armies. A big centralized one is a good way to make things worse. It's the EU getting too big for it's britches. If anything, their power needs to be throttled and sovereignty should stay with the individual states.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
