European Defence Force!! - You must be joking!! - Discuss....
 

Trying to imagine a European Defence Force leaves me cold. Imagine the difficulties of trying to get 28 Nations to agree on anything for a start and then there's the language barrier. It goes on and on...what do you guys and gals think? :\

It could work if they follow the NATO model. It could work if they paid for it.

But it doesn't make sense to have a NATO command structure and infrastructure and they replicate it at a Euro level and NATO non-Euro members, Turkey, US, Canada, Iceland would object to their funding of NATO infrastructure being used by non-NATO forces.

Already there are limitations on how national forces can used NATO funded facilities. Nightmare even worse than Brexit.

Done lots of time time in NATO command structure, and seen the tortuous process of decision-making. But though shaky, there is a structure and process. The EU project has no such well established procedures and with current EU expansion is doomed to failure. IMOP it is a vanity project pushed by certain nations to exclude the US and others. Without the US on board the EU is toothless.

Harry Hinsley's 5 volume masterpiece on British Intelligence in the Second World War has been described as a series written by committee, for a committee, about a committee. I think that as far as descriptions go, that it would be a pretty good description of a European Defence Force as well. And in that context, it isn't a complement.

This is a grand view of a convoluted command and control system:
Eye in the Sky (2015) - IMDb

Reaction time to a crisis would be interesting.

BB, as long as Herr Blitzen was in charge.

Hi Guys,

Please forgive a civvy private pilot who would like to comment.

It is often said that a camel is really a horse that has been designed by a committee.

However when the committee consists of 28 members, all coming from different cultures, speaking different languages and harbouring different hidden agendas and policy imperatives, what you are likely to end up with is something much less useful than a camel. In all probability what you will end up with will be a two headed Kangacrocopotamus with one wing and three legs.

This was certainly our civvy experience with JAA and that only involved a dozen Member States. EASA has been no better. Now that's just the organisational mess in prospect. If we now turn to financing it gets even more iffy.

Every state in NATO is supposed to spend 2% of GDP on defence. In fact, apart from the US and the UK, NONE of them do. And even the UK had to more or less cook the books this time round in order to be able to claim we were still contributing our 2%. (Apparently they had to add in things that previously were left out of the reckoning).

The US taxpayer is shouldering 75% of the burden. How much longer the US taxpayer will put up with this nonsense is anybody's guess.

If we now have to have an EU comic opera army (and navy and air force), complete with its Tower of Babel infrastructure, I can see the US taxpayer finally losing his/her temper and causing their government to pull out all together.

In short, I don't envy you guys if this madness goes ahead.

Regards,

BP

Broom

Don't forget though that because Uncle Sam pays for a lot of this stuff he thinks it means that he can interfere in European issues and that we should all do it his way..................... that will continue all the time he's paying.

Arc

Another point, touched on by Broom, is language. NATO has just two ENGLISH and French. What language would Euro force use?

One of the former WPC countries required its officers to qualify in English or retire. How many British officers would qualify in German or French?

Broom,

none of the national governments want an EU DF. this means it cannot happen.

some of the beaurocracy want an EU DF, because, well, who doesn't want their own Army, but such things are not theirs to fund, form, control or own. they are solely the preserve of the national governments, and while you can always find an idiot to speak stupid words, none of the national governments are actually interested in an EU DF.

thats not to say that there can't be, or isn't, co-operation, joint venture etc.. but everything is the preserve of the national governments to decide to engage, or not engage, on whatever basis they like.

Which nation is that PN? I don't know if it's across the board in the Army, but I know at least some cap badges -ETS if I recall - at least discussed not promoting people to Major without them having some level of second language competency.

In very general terms, the technical implications were looked at in about 2001 and the word "interoperability" cropped up. A room full of Generals said yes, of course, we need that. It was pointed out that it was not even policy for our own forces to be interoperable with each other, never mind other countries, and attempting that would eat up the entire equipment budget for some years. To their credit, they sneaked the word into the requirement for one Army project, only for it to be promptly removed and the budgetary estimates cut by 80%.

The multi-national NATO AEW&C force at Geilenkirchen has been in existence since 1980. In addition, NATO already has a multi-nation Strategic Airlift Capability, with 3 x C-17 based at Papa in Hungary. EATC at Eindhoven https://eatc-mil.com/user_uploads/pa...03%20pages.pdf already co-ordinates AT and AAR operations amongst 27 member states, to optimise use of assets with a tariff system which uses equivalent flight hours for nations which don't possess, for example, AAR aircraft. Thus the use of n AAR hours can be offset by (k x n) airlift hours, where 'n' is the nation's agreed factor used by MCCE. When the RAF could afford its own tankers, it too contributed AAR assets, but now that it has to rent its AAR aircraft under a PFI, their use by other nations is a commercial consideration.

Another emerging multi-national force is the European Defence Agency proposal for an AAR fleet of A330MRTT aircraft shared by 4/5 different nations.

Multi-national European forces are hardly anything new.

But the Little Englanders of the increasingly absurd 'Brexit' campaign won't wish to know this....:rolleyes:

BEagle, in a word NATO.

Melchett, I am not quite sure but I think it was Poland or Hungary. I do know that modern Poles, the ones working in Lincolnshire, seem to have better English than their grandparents the I flew with.

I f we were to remain in the union, what I'd like to know is, what are the chances of our being dragged kicking and screaming into the Euro Army, which I assume would include a Euro Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force!?

If this were so and the Falklands became an issue pressing a military solution again would our best of buddies throughout the 'union' support our case and allow us to call upon whatever military commitment was deemed necessary to resolve the crisis? and from across the entire ORBAT of the Euro Force?

Would the Supreme command in Brussels, or wherever its location, impose a radical re-deployment of forces in the UK? Could we expect, say...military units from across the continent to be based in London and take on the Royal Duties?

Could HQ EU Forces, acting under the ultimate direction of Brussels, alter significantly the current disposition of UK Forces at home, by ordering a imbalance of units here and there? Thus overriding the concerns of our very own countrymen and women currently charged with such responsibility?

What would become of our nuclear deterrent? Especially given the current position in the cycle of maintaining it?

FB:)

True. But last time I checked, my commissioning scroll had HM's signature on it not Juncker's. So up until the time that changes, Juncker and his chums can whistle if they think I'm fighting on his behalf. Bet I'm not the only one with those sentiments either.

I am with you there Melchett. PN hit it on the head - NATO. The EU is not providing new capability only sharing spare assets at best. As I stated earlier NATO is difficult enough, duplicating for EU is an absurd waste of money and time.

It would remain a National Assets, just the same as the French deterrent, as the French would never assign it. Remember, one of the reasons the French pulled out of the NATO chain of command for over 40 years was when the US tried to force them to use their nuclear weapons along with the British ones as part of a combined European force.

Col Kemp puts it very well here.

FB:)

No RAF senior officer has put his name forward as for BREXIT? I wonder why.. Is it because they see into the 21st century and not Waterloo?

Albert Ratman,
Serving officers of any rank cannot indulge in politics and we are now in Purdah, where no Government department can get involved. I am an Ex senior and I'm for Brexit. I also used to live near Waterloo, if this helps your case.

Mach2 - likewise..
I've voted for Brexit by postal vote. I don't consider myself a "Little Englander".. but I believe that the UK electorate must be able to vote for (or against) our lawmakers. Sovereignty is the key issue for me.

My daughter's OTOH are both Remain. Has any one else asked how their adult children will vote? Whatever happens we KOS will be largely unaffected, or dead.

My MiL, a dedicated outer at 91 has a grandson who has just started with easyJet as an FO, he is a remainer. Should we listen to or debate with our children, it is their future. Danny did his bit, We did ours. Now it is their turn.

Apart from Jock Stirrup, who let his name be added to that infamous letter drafted by Downing Street, retired senior RAF officers seem have been quiet on the subject either way, unlike their khaki and dark blue counterparts.

Most likely because they have a second career within the High Tech / Aerospace industry and actually have some idea of how Britexit will really screw up both their company and the country's trade for no major gain in any term.

For all of the bickering about NATO, it might be wise to consider that we did, at one time, share a common cause and at least a common purpose whose momentum carried over into the difficult peace after a horrible war. That common purpose brought a measure of peace and stability to central and western Europe.

If the European Defense Force is seen (politically) as a replacement for the collective security structure maintained by the North Atlantic alliance, will we have to engage with our children -- on both sides of the ocean -- on the pros and cons of that linkage and the value of being on side together?

This issue came up 20 years ago as "Eurocorps" was being tossed about as an idea. As an RRF, the idea was similar to UN and NATO in terms of nations offering troop units to support an op. Someone mentioned the NATO AWACS group, who have been an operational success. Another multinational success was the WEU maritime interdiction by in the Adriatic (Sharp Fence). It was later merged with a NATO op (Maritime Guard) to become Sharp Guard which was a success story insofar as multinational operations go.

Can this multinational force operate without the core C2 backbone from NATO?

As the nations have gotten used to working together for about 70 years, maybe yes. .

L Wolf. I haven't seen too much bickering about NATO, in this thread, only the proposed EURO Forces. NATO still works. NATO AWACS, which I know only too well, is a NATO product, driven by a severe operational shortfall during the Cold War and now sustained by industrial imperatives. Nations put in money and, roughly speaking, get their money back in industrial benefits. As far as I am aware, there is no similar scheme in the EU, which adds real additional capability and works. Perhaps others know more than I?

Lonewolf, like your thoughts. I see a Euro Defence Force as a NATO lite (no US forces) to be used for "european" issues but able to tap into the NATO structures to assist. Going forward I think the US pivot to pacific would mean they would also be keen for it. Good example would be Mediterranean naval patrols.

Really can't see why it is causing such anguish.

AY:-
The principal "European" issue will be the civil war that true union will inevitably lead to, a la the USSR and the USA. Some here may want to don the blue of the Union Forces, or cling to the quaint belief that our negotiated exemptions would allow us to be part of the EU but not obliged to fight for it. Include me out...

Don't forget that being in the EU is the best way to combat climate change!:ok:

FB:)

The United States is possibly not the worst outcome as far as a Southerner might be concerned today - compared e.g. to the increased possibility of the Nazis or the USSR having "won" against a more fragmented world.

Since I'm from there, I think about the point where Rhodesia chose not to become part of South Africa, which was incredibly stupid with hindsight even if it was an issue of sovereignty and not wanting to be run by Afrikaaners. Would the National Party have even been able to implement Apartheid with another couple of hundred thousand votes against them? Even if they had, Rhodesia v "freedom fighters" was quite a different thing from SA v "freedom fighters" in an economic sense particularly.

I don't want Zim to be part of SA particularly but I think if Zimbabwe could be no worse than the rest of SA now and have been so for the last 36 years then I suppose I would have to admit that it would have been the right thing to do.

So I don't think these choices are straightforward.

With warmest regards, Europe had a chance to handle a European security issue in Bosnia as "Europe" and failed badly. (Not for want of effort by a lot of folks in uniform). The habitual relationships were already there, from 40+ years of working together.

What second event/crisis can the EU defense proponents handle that establishes that collective effort as a stand alone from the long link? (I am not blind to some of the political obstacles to that). Put another way, whomever is championing this independent capability needs to demonstrate that the collective political will can get X done.

(That's why I tossed out the WEU flotilla, as it was an earnest effort in that direction well supported ... even though the larger effort eventually hadn't the momentum to work without outside help).

Since I've been a proponent of "bring the boys home" for about two decades (even though I lived in Germany as a kid and had a very fulfilling job in NATO proper) I may be an unusual PoV holder on this side of the pond.

Can the political obstacles be overcome?

It's not going to happen, but an interesting point for discussion: would we be better off applying to become the fifty-first state of the USA?

L Wolf, thanks giving some more insight to your position. I was at the pointed end of NATO in Bosnia (OP Deny Flight) air-to-air fighters. This might have functioned well, but for dual ROE with the UN who were particularly keen to allow free access to all combatant helicopters. I do not recall the EU being particularly involved in the air blockade at all.
I have had the pleasure to serve with 'your boys' in NATO, the UK, the US and elsewhere. I sincerely hope that you never bring them back home or we are well and truly stuffed!

PN

My easyJ boy is an outer - the young need reminding of the 53/50/37% youth unemployment in Greece/Spain/Italy. The EU is a basket case in its present form. It is unwilling to be reformed.

I worked in NATO in the 80's, I have a debt of gratitude to the US and Canada.

Tip of the cap, there was a lot of good effort put into that mess. The reliance on the UN was exposed as a mistake when one wanted results. Sad but true. (Given that my country is one of the permanent members, we are sometimes part of the problem).

t43562:-
I agree, but why go there in the first place? The Southern States wanted to secede, but that led directly to civil war. Unless we get out of the EU now, the same could apply to us and for every other European country that realises that it is a square peg in a round hole.

That is the problem with such "Unions", they cannot tolerate dissent for it can lead to their own domino-like collapse. The irony is that this particular Union, the result of a dissembling that presented it as a mere Economic Community to disguise its true purpose of European political unification to avoid further nationalistic wars, now threatens the worst kind of war known to man, Civil War.

As ever, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

To have a civil war you need armed force. Should one or more southern states declare Exit then what?

A European Force would comprise elements from every nation. Those from Southern states would have to go home if they opted to support their home state.

Then the remaining force would have to obey an order to "restore order" in the south. Can you conceive of that happening?

Disintegration, yes, forced reintegration, I don't think so