European Army
This is exactly what is the problem and why the EU should develop their militaries together. Now you have 27 inefficient militaries who all do everything separately.
An EU Army can’t happen overnight, that is why they should plan ahead together. Instead of buying different equipment, having different procedures etc.
.
An EU Army can’t happen overnight, that is why they should plan ahead together. Instead of buying different equipment, having different procedures etc.
.
However, there are very strong signs that the non-NATO countries are developing higher and higher NATO compatibility in their equipment and practices, in essence this raises the possibility of co-operation and the potential for successful outcome of co-operation. Take Finland for example: the change from cold war era T72:s to Leopards and having approx 250 of those MBT's with additional 250 IFV's was made in 10 years during 90's/00's. The change from MIG21's and Drakens to Hornets in the 90's. Acquisition of NATO compatible assault rifles. NASAMS, AMRAD-R's etc. Now the new HX project has only western fast jets participating.
What comes to pro-Russians here claiming that US is causing all the fuzz. An interesting piece of information is the EU/NATO countries that do have borders with Russia ie are in the first line:
Finland: 1271km (EU)
Estonia: 294km (EU+NATO)
Latvia: 270km (EU+NATO)
Lithuania: 266km (EU+NATO)
Poland: 204km (EU+NATO)
Norway: 196km (NATO)
When looking at the 10 countries exceeding the NATO 2% limit for 2020, these five are within. Finland is jumping above that 2% limit too with the HX project (not that it would have any meaning since not a member of NATO).
To me it looks like every country that is next to Russia is really securing themselves in one way or another (by fulfilling the NATO contract requirements or whatever). So the question is again: what is considered as a threat if it is not Russia?
Surely the answer is not that naive statement of "US propaganda scaring European", Russia has itself freightened everyone with its actions all around its borders, from Crimea and Georgia to Estonia and the Archipelago of Finland.
"NATO is intimidating Europe about the Russian threat and forcing it to build up its military capabilities. "
NATO can't even get its founding members to meet its proposed expenditure levels mate
NATO can't even get its founding members to meet its proposed expenditure levels mate
An impotent Biden administration who’ll yell stop or I’ll drop more sanctions? The Germans? The British who have whittled away their forces?
Maybe the Irish, they’ll get them all drunk on Irish moonshine.
For 6 years of war in the east of Ukraine (from 2014), 3,055 cases of civilian deaths were recorded: 1,814 men, 1,057 women, 98 boys, 49 girls and 37 adults, whose gender is not established. What makes Kiev kill its citizens in the east? Yes, it is Uncle Sam who forces them to do this, otherwise they will not be accepted into NATO. But Ukraine and Georgia are not Yugoslavia, where good Europe allowed NATO troops to kill civilians in order to shift all the problems to Europe.
That's just why Putin threatened Ukraine last month, that if Kiev launches a large-scale military operation in the Donbas, it will lead to the death of Ukraine.
That's just why Putin threatened Ukraine last month, that if Kiev launches a large-scale military operation in the Donbas, it will lead to the death of Ukraine.
Putins peace keeping: invade and annex.
This isn't going anywhere. Now I've got your point of view, and I can't agree with it.
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Bonvoy Marriott
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should develop, but unfortunately EU is too scattered since majority are members of NATO and the rest are doing what they think is best for them. What must be remembered is that EU is an economic union, not a military union.
However, there are very strong signs that the non-NATO countries are developing higher and higher NATO compatibility in their equipment and practices, in essence this raises the possibility of co-operation and the potential for successful outcome of co-operation. Take Finland for example: the change from cold war era T72:s to Leopards and having approx 250 of those MBT's with additional 250 IFV's was made in 10 years during 90's/00's. The change from MIG21's and Drakens to Hornets in the 90's. Acquisition of NATO compatible assault rifles. NASAMS, AMRAD-R's etc. Now the new HX project has only western fast jets participating.
What comes to pro-Russians here claiming that US is causing all the fuzz. An interesting piece of information is the EU/NATO countries that do have borders with Russia ie are in the first line:
Finland: 1271km (EU)
Estonia: 294km (EU+NATO)
Latvia: 270km (EU+NATO)
Lithuania: 266km (EU+NATO)
Poland: 204km (EU+NATO)
Norway: 196km (NATO)
When looking at the 10 countries exceeding the NATO 2% limit for 2020, these five are within. Finland is jumping above that 2% limit too with the HX project (not that it would have any meaning since not a member of NATO).
To me it looks like every country that is next to Russia is really securing themselves in one way or another (by fulfilling the NATO contract requirements or whatever). So the question is again: what is considered as a threat if it is not Russia?
Surely the answer is not that naive statement of "US propaganda scaring European", Russia has itself freightened everyone with its actions all around its borders, from Crimea and Georgia to Estonia and the Archipelago of Finland.
However, there are very strong signs that the non-NATO countries are developing higher and higher NATO compatibility in their equipment and practices, in essence this raises the possibility of co-operation and the potential for successful outcome of co-operation. Take Finland for example: the change from cold war era T72:s to Leopards and having approx 250 of those MBT's with additional 250 IFV's was made in 10 years during 90's/00's. The change from MIG21's and Drakens to Hornets in the 90's. Acquisition of NATO compatible assault rifles. NASAMS, AMRAD-R's etc. Now the new HX project has only western fast jets participating.
What comes to pro-Russians here claiming that US is causing all the fuzz. An interesting piece of information is the EU/NATO countries that do have borders with Russia ie are in the first line:
Finland: 1271km (EU)
Estonia: 294km (EU+NATO)
Latvia: 270km (EU+NATO)
Lithuania: 266km (EU+NATO)
Poland: 204km (EU+NATO)
Norway: 196km (NATO)
When looking at the 10 countries exceeding the NATO 2% limit for 2020, these five are within. Finland is jumping above that 2% limit too with the HX project (not that it would have any meaning since not a member of NATO).
To me it looks like every country that is next to Russia is really securing themselves in one way or another (by fulfilling the NATO contract requirements or whatever). So the question is again: what is considered as a threat if it is not Russia?
Surely the answer is not that naive statement of "US propaganda scaring European", Russia has itself freightened everyone with its actions all around its borders, from Crimea and Georgia to Estonia and the Archipelago of Finland.
Why negotiate the procurement of equipment separately to end up with a mixed bag of equipment? The MRTT fleet is a small example of how it could work.
At the moment the EU is a “superpower” and single entity when it comes to trading and regulations, but military wise it can’t act together at the moment. I also don’t see why NATO and an “EU Military Alliance” can’t exist in paralel.
just to clarify: an EU Army as a single entity is decades away, if it ever happens. But at the moment there are 27 different islands all going at it alone varying from medium level (France) to piss poor (Malta) all with different equipment and different procedures. Where is the problem of aligning the 27 militaries.
Why negotiate the procurement of equipment separately to end up with a mixed bag of equipment? The MRTT fleet is a small example of how it could work.
At the moment the EU is a “superpower” and single entity when it comes to trading and regulations, but military wise it can’t act together at the moment. I also don’t see why NATO and an “EU Military Alliance” can’t exist in paralel.
Why negotiate the procurement of equipment separately to end up with a mixed bag of equipment? The MRTT fleet is a small example of how it could work.
At the moment the EU is a “superpower” and single entity when it comes to trading and regulations, but military wise it can’t act together at the moment. I also don’t see why NATO and an “EU Military Alliance” can’t exist in paralel.
just to clarify: an EU Army as a single entity is decades away, if it ever happens. But at the moment there are 27 different islands all going at it alone varying from medium level (France) to piss poor (Malta) all with different equipment and different procedures. Where is the problem of aligning the 27 militaries.
Why negotiate the procurement of equipment separately to end up with a mixed bag of equipment? The MRTT fleet is a small example of how it could work.
At the moment the EU is a “superpower” and single entity when it comes to trading and regulations, but military wise it can’t act together at the moment. I also don’t see why NATO and an “EU Military Alliance” can’t exist in paralel.
Why negotiate the procurement of equipment separately to end up with a mixed bag of equipment? The MRTT fleet is a small example of how it could work.
At the moment the EU is a “superpower” and single entity when it comes to trading and regulations, but military wise it can’t act together at the moment. I also don’t see why NATO and an “EU Military Alliance” can’t exist in paralel.
The Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) is the part of the European Union's (EU) security and defence policy (CSDP) in which 25 of the 27 national armed forces pursue structural integration. Based on Article 42.6 and Protocol 10 of the Treaty on European Union, introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009, PESCO was first initiated in 2017.[1] The initial integration within the PESCO format is a number of projects which launched in 2018.[2]
Together with the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD), the European Defence Fund and the Military Planning and Conduct Capability (MPCC) it forms a new comprehensive defence package for the EU.[1]
PESCO is similar to enhanced co-operation in other policy areas, in the sense that integration does not require that all EU member states participate.
They also have:
Command options for EU-led missions[edit]
[i]For each military mission (certain missions are also referred to as operation), the Council nominates a dedicated OHQ. This section outlines the main options for OHQ.[3][page needed]Autonomous operations and missions[edit]
Military Planning and Conduct Capability (MPCC) of the EEAS' Military Staff (EUMS) in Brussels, Belgium
It would appear that a lot of background work has already been sorted.
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Bonvoy Marriott
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Nip,
I stated as “a single entity”, which PESCO is obviously not. I am not sure when or if a EU Army will ever be a “single entity” (For that to happen you need the EU to become a Federation of some kind.). But through integration and cooperation it should be able to act as a single entity. And personally I have no issues with that. I actually believe that it is the only way forward.
I stated as “a single entity”, which PESCO is obviously not. I am not sure when or if a EU Army will ever be a “single entity” (For that to happen you need the EU to become a Federation of some kind.). But through integration and cooperation it should be able to act as a single entity. And personally I have no issues with that. I actually believe that it is the only way forward.
However, I do have issues with kids from Dorset or Michigan, Brisbane or Alberta dying in the defence of Europe
Some halfway house where you squander billions on homemade hardware selected for the country of manufacture
and then run to the US, UK and Commonwealth when it turns to sh1t.
I guess you kept your opinions to yourself while you were serving...
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same with the US, they stayed "neutral" in both wars, until realizing that wasn't an option.... or war was brought onto them.
And ofcourse you'd ask the next country in line to help if your own is being run over, but that doesn't mean you haven't been doing your best to stop it. And the next country in line would much rather fight a war abroad than home on their own soil....
Clearly China is eating everyone's lunch industrially.
So rather than act to restore a balance, we act to ensure a future where our kids can aspire to be houseboys in some Chinese mansion.
We meanwhile distract ourselves with idiocies such as Brexit, Iran sanctions and pushing NATO closer to Moscow. Just imho.
So rather than act to restore a balance, we act to ensure a future where our kids can aspire to be houseboys in some Chinese mansion.
We meanwhile distract ourselves with idiocies such as Brexit, Iran sanctions and pushing NATO closer to Moscow. Just imho.
However, I do have issues with kids from Dorset or Michigan, Brisbane or Alberta dying in the defence of Europe
Err isn't that sort of the point of NATO (Oz aside) - Article 5 and all that? Are you suggesting that NATO should be disbanded?
Err isn't that sort of the point of NATO (Oz aside) - Article 5 and all that? Are you suggesting that NATO should be disbanded?
Some halfway house where you squander billions on homemade hardware selected for the country of manufacture
The Chinook was not built in the UK, but purchased anyway, and currently supporting the French because they don't have that capability.I'd argue that where we have had a platform with poor capability, performance or reliability, its been a eurofudge project. Ask the Australians how they are getting on with the NH90 or Tigre......
and then run to the US, UK and Commonwealth when it turns to sh1t.
When exactly did it last "turn to sh*t"? I think you've spent a little too long bingeing on Guy Martin's TV progs or listening to Farage's speeches.
When exactly did it last "turn to sh*t"? I think you've spent a little too long bingeing on Guy Martin's TV progs or listening to Farage's speeches.
I guess you kept your opinions to yourself while you were serving...
My issue isn't what NATO do, or don't do, in response to a threat; its what they are forced into by the actions of an EU with a foreign policy and military capability with its own agenda.
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Bonvoy Marriott
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hypothetically, imagine an EU army sparking a conflict between Greece and Turkey which drags in Russia, and then invoking Article 5.
Russia and Turkey aren’t actually good mates.
So I probably don’t understand what you mean exactly...
I have been in Afghanistan under NATO/ ISAF because of 9/11. Justified? Absolutely not imho. Still in favour of NATO though. But Europe / EU should not rely on NATO alone.
Russia has attacked Turkey’s troops last year. I’d say there is bigger risk of sparking a conflict right there.
A another couple of points, if we had remained, re-joined the EU and the progress toward a European Army (ie European Armed Forces), how would that play? Imagine that control of Britain's entire defence and security interests were controlled by Brussels? Should the Argentinians seize the opportunity to threaten, never mind invade, the Falklands Islands again. Could we realistically see Belgian and Spanish troops being embarked on German Ships supported by a French Aircraft Carrier, for eg, to head on down to the South Atlantic with a realistic intent to rescue the Falkland Islanders from Argentinian Forces. The Falklands after all, would be the EUs military responsibility.
Another point, what if this set too with the French were to occur if we were still in? Or is the argument it wouldn't if we were, in which case what's all the bother about?
FB
Another point, what if this set too with the French were to occur if we were still in? Or is the argument it wouldn't if we were, in which case what's all the bother about?
FB
Last edited by Finningley Boy; 7th May 2021 at 07:15.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
From Defense News, by Matthew Kambrod*, reference the posts above concerning the relevance and role of NATO
* (Matthew R. Kambrod is a 1962 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point with a master's degree in international relations from George Washington University in Washington, D.C. Prior to his retirement from the Army in 1987, he was Deputy for Aviation in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development, and Acquisition, where he had executive oversight of all Army aviation programs in terms of development and procurement of both aircraft and their systems. Earlier tours in the Pentagon included assignments involving the development of policy, doctrine, and requirements related to Army aviation force structure, training, and operational issues.)
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/...-a-pipe-dream/
Commentary - NATO defending Europe is a pipe dream
.....First, believe this: NATO is no more. The singular, powerful deterrent to Soviet aggression in the ’70s, ’80s and through the first decade of 2000 is factually gone. Clearly, the name is there. Thirty nations subscribe and meet regularly in Brussels, but their collective security — the very purpose of the alliance — was guaranteed by U.S. military power and U.S. military power alone. To believe otherwise is to believe fiction. That crucial underpinning is now gone.
In Europe, troop strengths under the Obama administration declined by 85 percent since the height of the Cold War, withdrawing combat-ready armor and infantry divisions poised instantly to battle Soviet forces. Anti-armor attack and assault helicopters were removed, to include U.S. Air Force A-10 attack aircraft embedded to counter the ever-increasing tank forces of Soviet armies.
Of equal importance, the key to rapid reinforcement of NATO was strategic airlift capable of inserting troops and weapons systems in a sequence, indisputably bolstering forward-based U.S. combat units. C-5 cargo aircraft, essential to that reinforcement, were halved in operational numbers, and some key C-17 units providing strategic airlift had been inactivated.....
Today, our “real world” deployable ground force for reinforcing NATO consists of very limited combat-ready brigades, perhaps a single division, leaving Putin in a position to threaten Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania or Poland at will and with total impunity, just as he did when annexing two Georgian provinces in 2009 and Crimea in 2014.
Worth adding is that at one point in time, U.S. military power in Europe could be rapidly deployed to the Middle East and proved a realistic deterrent to Russian maneuvering in that theater and on the African continent. No more, America......
If one were counting on successful diplomatic interaction among NATO nations and Russia, think again.
To believe that successful diplomacy in Europe can ever be conducted unless buttressed by overwhelming military power, with the full understanding by all participants that force will be used if diplomacy fails, would also be fiction. In this context, U.S. diplomacy addressing military issues today has no teeth — little more than a fable, and worthless versus Russian counterparts backed by powerful Russian forces.
NATO, emasculated by the absence of U.S. military power poses no great threat to Vladimir Putin.
* (Matthew R. Kambrod is a 1962 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point with a master's degree in international relations from George Washington University in Washington, D.C. Prior to his retirement from the Army in 1987, he was Deputy for Aviation in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development, and Acquisition, where he had executive oversight of all Army aviation programs in terms of development and procurement of both aircraft and their systems. Earlier tours in the Pentagon included assignments involving the development of policy, doctrine, and requirements related to Army aviation force structure, training, and operational issues.)
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/...-a-pipe-dream/
Commentary - NATO defending Europe is a pipe dream
.....First, believe this: NATO is no more. The singular, powerful deterrent to Soviet aggression in the ’70s, ’80s and through the first decade of 2000 is factually gone. Clearly, the name is there. Thirty nations subscribe and meet regularly in Brussels, but their collective security — the very purpose of the alliance — was guaranteed by U.S. military power and U.S. military power alone. To believe otherwise is to believe fiction. That crucial underpinning is now gone.
In Europe, troop strengths under the Obama administration declined by 85 percent since the height of the Cold War, withdrawing combat-ready armor and infantry divisions poised instantly to battle Soviet forces. Anti-armor attack and assault helicopters were removed, to include U.S. Air Force A-10 attack aircraft embedded to counter the ever-increasing tank forces of Soviet armies.
Of equal importance, the key to rapid reinforcement of NATO was strategic airlift capable of inserting troops and weapons systems in a sequence, indisputably bolstering forward-based U.S. combat units. C-5 cargo aircraft, essential to that reinforcement, were halved in operational numbers, and some key C-17 units providing strategic airlift had been inactivated.....
Today, our “real world” deployable ground force for reinforcing NATO consists of very limited combat-ready brigades, perhaps a single division, leaving Putin in a position to threaten Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania or Poland at will and with total impunity, just as he did when annexing two Georgian provinces in 2009 and Crimea in 2014.
Worth adding is that at one point in time, U.S. military power in Europe could be rapidly deployed to the Middle East and proved a realistic deterrent to Russian maneuvering in that theater and on the African continent. No more, America......
If one were counting on successful diplomatic interaction among NATO nations and Russia, think again.
To believe that successful diplomacy in Europe can ever be conducted unless buttressed by overwhelming military power, with the full understanding by all participants that force will be used if diplomacy fails, would also be fiction. In this context, U.S. diplomacy addressing military issues today has no teeth — little more than a fable, and worthless versus Russian counterparts backed by powerful Russian forces.
NATO, emasculated by the absence of U.S. military power poses no great threat to Vladimir Putin.
its what they are forced into by the actions of an EU with a foreign policy and military capability with its own agenda.
Also, where was mighty Blighty in these 'recent' European conflicts? Front and centre, urging our European colleagues into action, or quietly waiting for the Americans to arrive?
Hypothetically, imagine an EU army sparking a conflict between Greece and Turkey which drags in Russia, and then invoking Article 5.
I'd argue that where we have had a platform with poor capability, performance or reliability, its been a eurofudge project.
You're actually arguing for the US rather than anything to do with the UK or Commonwealth.
ORAC - a fair assessment. The US public would not support any military intervention in Europe (with the possible exception of air strikes), and rightly so IMO.
Also, the Russian threat is way overblown. Everybody harks on about Crimea whilst forgetting the fact the Russia 'lost' the rump of Ukraine, something which still clearly irks Putin. Its laboured efforts in Syria and Libya, and abandonment of esrtwhile allies such as Armenia says all you need to know.
Personally I think Russia ought to join the EU (Putin's regime is no worse than Orban's), to secure their economic future and provide a buttress against Chinese expansionism (and for LOLz, of course...)
Also, the Russian threat is way overblown. Everybody harks on about Crimea whilst forgetting the fact the Russia 'lost' the rump of Ukraine, something which still clearly irks Putin. Its laboured efforts in Syria and Libya, and abandonment of esrtwhile allies such as Armenia says all you need to know.
Personally I think Russia ought to join the EU (Putin's regime is no worse than Orban's), to secure their economic future and provide a buttress against Chinese expansionism (and for LOLz, of course...)