European Union Army

[MOS:96B2P]

2 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

As I understand it, if the little old Italian lady has to recycle, it's because the Italian parliament voted to approve a directive that has already been voted through EU parliament. So her vote has actually been heard twice.   

Well, if true, that's good for her.     

 

3 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

For all its faults, the EU is not some Communist empire. If a country wants to leave, they can leave. Look at Britain.

Out of curiosity, what would happen if California voted to leave the USA?

Way back in the day we use to have many separate state militias ect. with a very small regular force.  Since we now have a very strong, centralized (Pentagon) standing national Army (which I served in) it is possible that the vote would be ignored and the military would enforce the ignoring of said vote if necessary (as in the 1860s).      

Out of curiosity, what would happen, if the EU had a standing Army and Greece had riots over austerity, refused to pay what they owed, or whatever............. maybe that's not a good example but you probably understand the concept................ 

IMO they might do what unified Armies do............... keep the unity.         

[Bulletpoint]

34 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Out of curiosity, what would happen, if the EU had a standing Army and Greece had riots over austerity, refused to pay what they owed, or whatever............. maybe that's not a good example but you probably understand the concept................ 

IMO they might do what unified Armies do............... keep the unity.         

Good question, and I think that's going to be the first thing every European country would consider before agreeing to make such an army. "Could that thing be used against us?"

I strongly assume any future EU army would not have mandate to be deployed inside the EU unless there's an attack from the outside.

You might say such mandates are easily forgotten in times of crisis, but then again, why didn't France and Germany agree to send a "peacekeeping force" to Greece last time around?

Because the Greek riot police handled the situation just fine, even after the Greeks elected the rebellious socialist government... that eventually agreed to the EU bailout deals. Deep down, the Greeks knew they would be screwed without the EU, and vice versa.

Also, because that kind of escalation often leads to the situation getting out of hand. If you reach the point where you have to deploy the army against protesters, either you refuse and watch your nation fall apart (as in the USSR) or you go all in on the oppression and leave no doubt that you're now a brutal dictatorship. As recently seen in Syria.

 

Edited April 3, 2019 by Bulletpoint

[MOS:96B2P]

13 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Good question, and I think that's going to be the first thing every European country would consider before agreeing to make such an army. "Could that thing be used against us?"  I strongly assume any future EU army will not have mandate to be deployed inside the EU unless there's an attack from the outside.  You might say such mandates are easily forgotten in times of crisis,

Everything has advantages and disadvantages including an EU Army.  That is for the citizens of the EU to decide.  IMO since the EU is a bureaucracy, (which grows or dies) it is inevitable that if the EU remains the EU it will have an EU Army someday.  I think the link provided by @Aragorn2002 had an EU official state that it was inevitable that the EU would have an EU Army someday. 

So, it would seem after the question "Could that thing be used against us?" is asked and answered the EU citizens will eventually get an EU Army.  Then we will find out how well funded it is and how it is used.  I guess the Italian widow in the village will get at least two votes on said use along with the Greek pensioner .  If they actually have a meaningful impact on funding / use of a future EU Army I suspect the Army will be underfunded since the widower and pensioner will have other spending priorities. 

Interesting topic.    

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Defence by international committee.....What could possibly go wrong? 

PS - I'm sure the French will love being told when & where they may or may not use their nuclear forces by Brussels. 

Edited April 3, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Aragorn2002]

An EU army won't be like the foreign legion, but much along the lines of the present NATO structure, but more independent from it. It won't be very different from what's already the 1. German-Dutch Army Korps, in which in wartime 50 000 German and Dutch soldiers will be concentrated. And it can act in strictly European interests, without interference from....well, non-Europeans.

Europe will be forced to spend much more money on their armed forces, which is what the US wants it to do, isn't it?  

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

Defence spending: Nato europe: 1,5% of GDP, Russia: 4,3% of GDP

Nato Europe GDP: 17 trn $, Russia 1,6 trn$

(do the math)

 

 

[Bulletpoint]

2 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

So, it would seem after the question "Could that thing be used against us?" is asked and answered the EU citizens will eventually get an EU Army.  Then we will find out how well funded it is and how it is used.  I guess the Italian widow in the village will get at least two votes on said use along with the Greek pensioner .

Now you're being snarky, but it's all good

I don't think there will ever be an EU army. At least not in any foreseeable future. But I could imagine NATO morphing into a more European force and the US going their own ways.

As I understand it, establishing an EU army could not be done through the normal legislative process of the EU directives. It would be a case where the member states give up sovereignty, and in DK at least, those need to pass with a large majority in the DK parliament or by a referendum.

In Denmark, we have several opt-out deals with the EU, but that's a story for another time

The thing about bureaucracies needing to grow or die - I think that's just a saying. Same with "power corrupts and ultimate power corrupts absolutely". I think it's just that corrupt people tend to seek power, and we tend to notice them more when they get it because they make a huge mess of things.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Bulletpoint

[MOS:96B2P]

7 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Now you're being snarky, but it's all good

Sorry, my friend.  I was trying to be funny but that was kind of snarky.  A thin line between the two sometimes. 

 

9 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

As I understand it, establishing an EU army could not be done through the normal legislative process of the EU directives. It would be a case where the member states give up sovereignty, and in DK at least, those need to pass with a large majority in the DK parliament or by a referendum.  In Denmark, we have several opt-out deals with the EU, but that's a story for another time

Interesting.  I Googled some of the things that @Aragorn2002 posted and it seems the military establishments in Europe are already merging forces.  The German-Dutch Corps etc.  I guess the Dutch and German parliaments must have voted and approved this merger?  Just my outsider opinion but it seems like the EU is moving towards an EU Army now. 

[MOS:96B2P]

1 hour ago, Aragorn2002 said:

without interference from....well, non-Europeans.     

Not sure what this means............. my understanding was that Europe was a very diverse, multicultural society and becoming more so all the time.  So, I don't really follow what this means.       

 

1 hour ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Europe will be forced to spend much more money on their armed forces,   

Not sure about this.  I think we might both agree that Europe should spend more money on their armed forces.  I don't see them forced to do so.  Wouldn't the money to do so need to be re-directed from another part of their fiscal budgets?  What other part of the budget would the citizens be willing to take the money from?  I think this basic question remains, whether the Americans remain or not.                  

[Wicky]

It's been happening for while - and accelerating with an eye to the future with Trump's unpredictable bossing / isolationist contradictory attitude expressed within a sentence or two at times.

An EU military* (not just Army) like any company restructuring would means less doing more  - if US does a dump on NATO for whatever reason. 

Interest Growing in European Multinational Tanker Force

LONDON—More countries are showing interest in joining the Netherlands-led Multinational Multi-Role Tanker Transport Fleet (MMF) as the organization gears up for the delivery of its first aircraft next year.

The Czech Republic could be next to sign up to the program, which already has the backing of Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway, who are together establishing an eight-aircraft unit of Airbus A330 tankers to be based in the Netherlands and Germany, Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF) Col. Jurgen van der Biezen told Aerospace DAILY.

European nations have been working to try and boost their aerial refueling capacity after they were criticized for being forced to rely on U.S. tankers to carry out missions over Libya during the air war in 2011.

[Michael Emrys]

9 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Out of curiosity, what would happen if California voted to leave the USA?

We may find out before too very much longer.

Michael

[Aragorn2002]

9 hours ago, __Yossarian0815[jby] said:

Defence spending: Nato europe: 1,5% of GDP, Russia: 4,3% of GDP

Nato Europe GDP: 17 trn $, Russia 1,6 trn$

(do the math)

But as always Russia is lying about the facts, isn't it?

https://icds.ee/what-is-hidden-in-russias-military-budget/

And there's also this to consider.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/world/wp/2018/05/02/even-as-fear-of-russia-is-rising-its-military-spending-is-actually-decreasing/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0d04bee211f3

"This should come as a relief for Europe and for NATO,” said Siemon Wezeman, a senior researcher with SIPRI. “But of course, budget and intentions are distinct. Russia is still strong enough to make a mess out of things.”

And we know you guys usualy do. So yes, let's do the math, but let's do it properly.

[Warts 'n' all]

First job for a European Army. Clean the English Lager Louts from the beaches of the Med this summer with extreme prejudice.

[Combatintman]

1 hour ago, Warts 'n' all said:

First job for a European Army. Clean the English Lager Louts from the beaches of the Med this summer with extreme prejudice.

Sigh … yet another operational tour to a hot and sandy place.

[Bulletpoint]

11 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

12 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Now you're being snarky, but it's all good

Sorry, my friend.  I was trying to be funny but that was kind of snarky.  A thin line between the two sometimes. 

Don't worry. I may be pretty liberal, but I'm not offended that easily

And it's always interesting with some critical questions. Lots of those can be asked about the EU for sure.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Bulletpoint

[Sgt.Squarehead]

4 hours ago, Combatintman said:

Sigh … yet another operational tour to a hot and sandy place.

Busman's holiday mate? 

[Combatintman]

2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Busman's holiday mate? 

Beats Baghdad by a country mile (1.60934 km).

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

On 4/4/2019 at 7:28 AM, Aragorn2002 said:

But as always Russia is lying about the facts, isn't it?

https://icds.ee/what-is-hidden-in-russias-military-budget/

And there's also this to consider.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/world/wp/2018/05/02/even-as-fear-of-russia-is-rising-its-military-spending-is-actually-decreasing/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0d04bee211f3

"This should come as a relief for Europe and for NATO,” said Siemon Wezeman, a senior researcher with SIPRI. “But of course, budget and intentions are distinct. Russia is still strong enough to make a mess out of things.”

And we know you guys usualy do. So yes, let's do the math, but let's do it properly.

Fair enough. Budget and intentions is true for all sides. For fun´s sake (before this thread is locked) imagine Europe actually integrating its armies and actually spending 2% of GDP but not on US arms.

 

 

[Aragorn2002]

21 minutes ago, __Yossarian0815[jby] said:

Fair enough. Budget and intentions is true for all sides. For fun´s sake (before this thread is locked) imagine Europe actually integrating its armies and actually spending 2% of GDP but not on US arms.

I don't think it will really come  to integrating armies, but more co-operation between units in a larger multi-national unit. Not ideal, but as I mentioned it works for example with Dutch and German units in one Korps. Same would be possible for example for Finnish and Swedish units, or French and Belgian units. Using the same equipment would also help a lot. And yes, preferably made in Europe.

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

I totally agree, but I was being snarky that the US would not be amused if the envisioned 2% of GDP weren´t spent at least in part on US arms.

[Aragorn2002]

Perhaps the time of amusing the US is coming to an end for Europe. I don't like it, but it feels that way. Times are changing. Let's hope I'm wrong.

[ncc1701e]

1 hour ago, Aragorn2002 said:

I don't think it will really come  to integrating armies, but more co-operation between units in a larger multi-national unit. Not ideal, but as I mentioned it works for example with Dutch and German units in one Korps. Same would be possible for example for Finnish and Swedish units, or French and Belgian units. Using the same equipment would also help a lot. And yes, preferably made in Europe.

25 minutes ago, __Yossarian0815[jby] said:

I totally agree, but I was being snarky that the US would not be amused if the envisioned 2% of GDP weren´t spent at least in part on US arms.

Well see the F35 Lightning program, there are two European programs existing: the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale. Still, majority of EU countries prefer to buy US. It's fashion. 

[Aragorn2002]

38 minutes ago, ncc1701e said:

Well see the F35 Lightning program, there are two European programs existing: the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale. Still, majority of EU countries prefer to buy US. It's fashion. 

For fighters yes. Not for tanks and stuff. Word is that the EU is also planning on more defence projects to keep the money in Europe.

[Frenchy56]

2 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

For fighters yes. Not for tanks and stuff. Word is that the EU is also planning on more defence projects to keep the money in Europe.

The Belgians buy American because they don't want to buy French. In fact, they avoided buying any French fighter after that time we sold them Mirages in the late 60's.

Edited April 6, 2019 by Frenchy56

[sburke]

On ‎4‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 11:59 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Defence by international committee.....What could possibly go wrong? 

PS - I'm sure the French will love being told when & where they may or may not use their nuclear forces by Brussels. 

no difference than having a federal state.  Eventually we humans are gonna have to figure out how to stop behaving like a bunch of idiots and learn how to manage to get along.