European Army
If memory serves, the last time there was a European Army worthy of the name was in 1900, during the Chinese upheaval now called the 'Boxer Rebellion'.
Admittedly, most of the force was made up by large contingents from Japan and Russia, plus the US, but the rest of the troops were from the UK, France, Italy, Germany and Austria-Hungary, so a true European army.
By all accounts, this assemblage performed well militarily, disregarding the various atrocities and pillaging that took place.
Admittedly, most of the force was made up by large contingents from Japan and Russia, plus the US, but the rest of the troops were from the UK, France, Italy, Germany and Austria-Hungary, so a true European army.
By all accounts, this assemblage performed well militarily, disregarding the various atrocities and pillaging that took place.
Saul,
To be fair, referring to europeans as eurotrash is not confined to an anonymous forum, I'd quite happily use the term in person.
I've worked with several European militaries and found the Estonians and Poles to be very professional, but I've also witnessed others that add nothing beyond and increased supply chain burden. You are correct that not all EU members are NATO members, though the majority that aren't have a policy of neutrality, so I am not sure how that adds military value. Of those that do reside under the safety blanket of NATO peace and security, several are completely ineffective from a military perspective mainly due to size - please don't tell me Luxembourg, Malta, Belgium or Portugal are going to contribute anything particularly tangible in terms of defence.
Any EU Army will be dependant on the French, and as we have seen during Macron's tenure, that is a lever for national influence. I've always found the German's too guilt ridden, and scared to be seen as dominant, to provide any leadership on defence matters, and the French still seem to blame the anglosphere for liberating them when the resistance had it in hand. Since Iraq, the Europeans have become increasingly anti-US (even before Trump) and now are equally anti-UK (or certainly the EU is). As soon as the EU army club is up and running, the French will seek to put distance between Europe and NATO. It will go wrong, and the US and UK will be expected to pick up the pieces.
You may not share my view, and that's fine. I wish you well; you'll have some awesome parades, but don't expect anyone West of Brest to start blowing bugles in any hurry when you're knee deep in Russians and the French are shrugging their shoulders.
To be fair, referring to europeans as eurotrash is not confined to an anonymous forum, I'd quite happily use the term in person.
I've worked with several European militaries and found the Estonians and Poles to be very professional, but I've also witnessed others that add nothing beyond and increased supply chain burden. You are correct that not all EU members are NATO members, though the majority that aren't have a policy of neutrality, so I am not sure how that adds military value. Of those that do reside under the safety blanket of NATO peace and security, several are completely ineffective from a military perspective mainly due to size - please don't tell me Luxembourg, Malta, Belgium or Portugal are going to contribute anything particularly tangible in terms of defence.
Any EU Army will be dependant on the French, and as we have seen during Macron's tenure, that is a lever for national influence. I've always found the German's too guilt ridden, and scared to be seen as dominant, to provide any leadership on defence matters, and the French still seem to blame the anglosphere for liberating them when the resistance had it in hand. Since Iraq, the Europeans have become increasingly anti-US (even before Trump) and now are equally anti-UK (or certainly the EU is). As soon as the EU army club is up and running, the French will seek to put distance between Europe and NATO. It will go wrong, and the US and UK will be expected to pick up the pieces.
You may not share my view, and that's fine. I wish you well; you'll have some awesome parades, but don't expect anyone West of Brest to start blowing bugles in any hurry when you're knee deep in Russians and the French are shrugging their shoulders.
Regarding the spenditure (which seems to be your main concern): when Trump was ranting about the defence expenditure, he was going with numbers from years ago. Underneath I've attached the most recent defence spenditure estimates for 2020 within NATO countries. Every single NATO country has increased their budget, majority of them very significantly too. Some have more than doubled their spenditure. As of today, 10 countries are over the threshold, 5 countries are very close. In 2014 only 3 countries were over the threshold and 1 was very close (by close I mean within a two tenths of a percentage point). So the spenditure is picking up, and has picked up very well. Do you think there is a very sound reason to be so aggressive about the spenditure at this point since we all know that governmental budgets can't be shifted over night and change is significant?
Source: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2...020-104-en.pdf
Last edited by Beamr; 29th Apr 2021 at 05:45. Reason: source added
The same, tired and now very boring old tune. I thought (hoped?) this discussion would cease once the UK had left the EU, after all, what concern is it of ours now? Who cares what the European countries do now? Its up to them. I guess it keeps you warm at night, still raging on and on about this...
Personally I wouldn't give a stuff if they left NATO and went their own way. Actually it would be amusing to see some in America twist and turn over this, especially if the likes of Germany turned around and told them to leave Ramstein.
As for the Russian threat, I sincerely doubt they could trouble nothing more than the odd Baltic state (and what would/could NATO do about this? Not a lot IMO). They certainly wouldn't want to go up against the likes of Poland, especially given their laboured efforts in eastern Ukraine.
Personally I wouldn't give a stuff if they left NATO and went their own way. Actually it would be amusing to see some in America twist and turn over this, especially if the likes of Germany turned around and told them to leave Ramstein.
As for the Russian threat, I sincerely doubt they could trouble nothing more than the odd Baltic state (and what would/could NATO do about this? Not a lot IMO). They certainly wouldn't want to go up against the likes of Poland, especially given their laboured efforts in eastern Ukraine.
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Bonvoy Marriott
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saul,
To be fair, referring to europeans as eurotrash is not confined to an anonymous forum, I'd quite happily use the term in person.
I've worked with several European militaries and found the Estonians and Poles to be very professional, but I've also witnessed others that add nothing beyond and increased supply chain burden. You are correct that not all EU members are NATO members, though the majority that aren't have a policy of neutrality, so I am not sure how that adds military value. Of those that do reside under the safety blanket of NATO peace and security, several are completely ineffective from a military perspective mainly due to size - please don't tell me Luxembourg, Malta, Belgium or Portugal are going to contribute anything particularly tangible in terms of defence.
Any EU Army will be dependant on the French, and as we have seen during Macron's tenure, that is a lever for national influence. I've always found the German's too guilt ridden, and scared to be seen as dominant, to provide any leadership on defence matters, and the French still seem to blame the anglosphere for liberating them when the resistance had it in hand. Since Iraq, the Europeans have become increasingly anti-US (even before Trump) and now are equally anti-UK (or certainly the EU is). As soon as the EU army club is up and running, the French will seek to put distance between Europe and NATO. It will go wrong, and the US and UK will be expected to pick up the pieces.
You may not share my view, and that's fine. I wish you well; you'll have some awesome parades, but don't expect anyone West of Brest to start blowing bugles in any hurry when you're knee deep in Russians and the French are shrugging their shoulders.
To be fair, referring to europeans as eurotrash is not confined to an anonymous forum, I'd quite happily use the term in person.
I've worked with several European militaries and found the Estonians and Poles to be very professional, but I've also witnessed others that add nothing beyond and increased supply chain burden. You are correct that not all EU members are NATO members, though the majority that aren't have a policy of neutrality, so I am not sure how that adds military value. Of those that do reside under the safety blanket of NATO peace and security, several are completely ineffective from a military perspective mainly due to size - please don't tell me Luxembourg, Malta, Belgium or Portugal are going to contribute anything particularly tangible in terms of defence.
Any EU Army will be dependant on the French, and as we have seen during Macron's tenure, that is a lever for national influence. I've always found the German's too guilt ridden, and scared to be seen as dominant, to provide any leadership on defence matters, and the French still seem to blame the anglosphere for liberating them when the resistance had it in hand. Since Iraq, the Europeans have become increasingly anti-US (even before Trump) and now are equally anti-UK (or certainly the EU is). As soon as the EU army club is up and running, the French will seek to put distance between Europe and NATO. It will go wrong, and the US and UK will be expected to pick up the pieces.
You may not share my view, and that's fine. I wish you well; you'll have some awesome parades, but don't expect anyone West of Brest to start blowing bugles in any hurry when you're knee deep in Russians and the French are shrugging their shoulders.
so you are actually calling Europeans Eurotrash in real life. I hope you are as proud as the Bulldog that is tattood on your breast.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir, I really want to emphasize that only 21 out of 27 EU countries are actually members of NATO. You can't use either of those numbers when talking about countries that have both NATO and EU membership.
Regarding the spenditure (which seems to be your main concern): when Trump was ranting about the defence expenditure, he was going with numbers from years ago. Underneath I've attached the most recent defence spenditure estimates for 2020 within NATO countries. Every single NATO country has increased their budget, majority of them very significantly too. Some have more than doubled their spenditure. As of today, 10 countries are over the threshold, 5 countries are very close. In 2014 only 3 countries were over the threshold and 1 was very close (by close I mean within a two tenths of a percentage point). So the spenditure is picking up, and has picked up very well. Do you think there is a very sound reason to be so aggressive about the spenditure at this point since we all know that governmental budgets can't be shifted over night and change is significant?
Source: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2...020-104-en.pdf
Regarding the spenditure (which seems to be your main concern): when Trump was ranting about the defence expenditure, he was going with numbers from years ago. Underneath I've attached the most recent defence spenditure estimates for 2020 within NATO countries. Every single NATO country has increased their budget, majority of them very significantly too. Some have more than doubled their spenditure. As of today, 10 countries are over the threshold, 5 countries are very close. In 2014 only 3 countries were over the threshold and 1 was very close (by close I mean within a two tenths of a percentage point). So the spenditure is picking up, and has picked up very well. Do you think there is a very sound reason to be so aggressive about the spenditure at this point since we all know that governmental budgets can't be shifted over night and change is significant?
Source: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2...020-104-en.pdf
(Also of interest on that linked doc. is the graph showing the UK spends close to the least on personnel as a proportion of overall defence spending, 'beaten' only by Luxembourg.)
The UK spends most on BAe.................
Very valid question so here you go. As we can see, the trend has been upwards on most countries already pre-COVID (exceptions are Croatia, Albania, Belgium). 9 countries above 2% threshold and 3 countries very close. Still very big change comparing to 2014.
source: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2...019-123-en.pdf
source: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2...019-123-en.pdf
All due to Vladimir Vladimirovich
Very valid question so here you go. As we can see, the trend has been upwards on most countries already pre-COVID (exceptions are Croatia, Albania, Belgium). 9 countries above 2% threshold and 3 countries very close. Still very big change comparing to 2014.
source: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2...019-123-en.pdf
source: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2...019-123-en.pdf
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If those seven were to increase expenditure to the agreed upon 2% it would likely represent a significant boost to NATO's capabilities.
Also interesting is that of those not pulling their weight 4, Germany, France, Italy, and Canada, are in the top 10 of the world's highest GDPs. A further 3, Spain, Netherlands, and Turkey, are in the top 20.
If those seven were to increase expenditure to the agreed upon 2% it would likely represent a significant boost to NATO's capabilities.
If those seven were to increase expenditure to the agreed upon 2% it would likely represent a significant boost to NATO's capabilities.
There is no logical basis for the 2% threshold afaik.
Plus as the late Lyndon B Johnson used to say, it is much better to have people inside the tent p**ing out than the other way around.
Whatever each member brings to the Alliance has to be worth the increase in collective risk. There's clearly some benefit from having states with the political clout of France, Germany and Turkey on board. Others will bring territorial or basing advantages. No doubt these countries price these factors into their calculations. The rest need to pay their way: it's no surprise the Baltic states all meet the 2%!
The easiest answer to hat is to take a map of Europe and colour in those who aren't paying the 2% (or near it) - makes it a difficult place to defend if you throw the lagards out doesn't it?
And, after all as W Germany used to say "we provide the battlefield for free"
And, after all as W Germany used to say "we provide the battlefield for free"
Are you saying that we are under threat from NATO? We ARE NATO!!!!!
Then why did they agree to it in 2014? What is the point in having an agreement, that you don’t think is worthwhile? Don’t they have the courage of their convictions to be honest?
"What is the point in having an agreement, that you don’t think is worthwhile? "
you obviously haven't worked with many politicians.
you obviously haven't worked with many politicians.
NATO was created not by Europe, but by America, and the brighter it burns here, the more America will rejoice. Who bombed Yugoslavia in 1999? Maybe Russia or France or England or someone else?
Everyone has his own opinion and NATO (USA) has it`s own too. In order to increase military spending, it is necessary that the society itself asks for this. That's why two James Bonds were invented (Petrov and Bashirov), which intimidated all of Europe. I wonder what will happen if the Red Army comes there?
Everyone has his own opinion and NATO (USA) has it`s own too. In order to increase military spending, it is necessary that the society itself asks for this. That's why two James Bonds were invented (Petrov and Bashirov), which intimidated all of Europe. I wonder what will happen if the Red Army comes there?
NATO was created not by Europe, but by America, and the brighter it burns here, the more America will rejoice. Who bombed Yugoslavia in 1999? Maybe Russia or France or England or someone else?
Everyone has his own opinion and NATO (USA) has it`s own too. In order to increase military spending, it is necessary that the society itself asks for this. That's why two James Bonds were invented (Petrov and Bashirov), which intimidated all of Europe. I wonder what will happen if the Red Army comes there?
Everyone has his own opinion and NATO (USA) has it`s own too. In order to increase military spending, it is necessary that the society itself asks for this. That's why two James Bonds were invented (Petrov and Bashirov), which intimidated all of Europe. I wonder what will happen if the Red Army comes there?
Crimea is the start of Russian expansion. Georgia is the model for how they will take over all the previous USSR vassal states. If European governments seriously think that the US will draw a line in the sand and spend the kind of blood and treasure it will take to defend them they are seriously deluded.
Putin rightly sees weakness in Western Europe and will take as much advantage as those Western European states will let him. As currently envisioned the “European Army” has no credibility as a check on Russian expansionism.
Putin rightly sees weakness in Western Europe and will take as much advantage as those Western European states will let him. As currently envisioned the “European Army” has no credibility as a check on Russian expansionism.