European Army
 

Been mocked as a fantasy many times, now...........

Brussels reveals vision for European army to supersede Nato

Plans for the foundation of a European “security and defence union” by 2025 to rival Nato as Europe’s military defender were set out in Brussels yesterday.

The blueprint envisages the organisation taking over from the established American-led alliance as Europe’s first line of defence in a political landscape changed by Brexit and President Trump. Federica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign affairs commissioner, echoed comments made by Angela Merkel that Europe could no longer “completely depend” on the US. The proposals, she said, were “linked to a certain unpredictability of positions in Washington” — a reference to Mr Trump’s failure publicly to back Nato’s mutual-defence clause in Brussels a fortnight ago.

Manfred Weber, head of the biggest bloc of MEPs in the European parliament, hailed the plan as the biggest leap in integration since the single currency. “Europe needs to grow up and to be able to defend itself. A common EU defence is a must. It is the second major development for EU after the euro,” he said.

Europe’s defence ambitions have been dogged in the past by British vetoes, German reluctance to commit military forces to operations and a reliance on the US in the Libya bombing campaign. Britain’s decision to leave the EU and Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 have revived enthusiasm for common defence structures; plans that have been accelerated by the result of the American presidential election last year.

Yesterday’s “reflection paper” envisages an EU military force that can act independently of Nato to run “high-end operations to better protect Europe, potentially including operations against terrorist groups, naval operations in hostile environments and cyberdefence actions”. To begin with the “EU would take more decisive action in dealing with threats and challenges falling below the threshold” of Nato’s Article 5 collective defence clause. In the longer term, the objective will be “fully synchronised” defence planning, shared intelligence and “agreed priorities” on military capabilities with “a greater level of integration of states’ defence forces”.

Why must it rival it/exist in parallel? Why not as a replacement and a euro answer to euro security needs and concerns.

From a practical standpoint, getting many euro nations to fund the existing structure at agreed upon rates has been a bridge too far. Do you really think they'll fund both? Me, not so much.

Mix in varying geo political priorities, agendas and sensitivities. Can say Italy veto unified military or police actions by this force when Germany believes to be in euroland's collective best interests?

The facade of a homogeneous Europe makes this tenuous at best.

A European army to exist alongside NATO, and weaken both? Whether Europe likes it or not, it is dependent on the USA, and Trump will only be in power until 2024 at the latest. NATO works, has worked and will continue to work.

Guys (and girls) in Brussels seem to loose the ground completely :-)
Putting away obvious technical/military and cost aspects, there will additionally arise a political tension because the "new leader" will either be Germany (irritating France and some southern countries) or France (irritating Germany and its new east-european vassals). Can hardly believe they (F and D) will find a stable balance.

The way things are looking across the pond, Trump won't be in power beyond the Summer, but on the European Army, I take it this includes a European Navy and Air Force to boot! Well we all knew no matter that it was denied in the run up to Brexit. But as has been said, without the USA, this is a phoney token gesture. None of the West European countries certainly, have any chance, public reaction nor political will to spend the amount on Defence to offset the American departure which may well follow.:uhoh:

FB:)

Colour me cynical, but the EU crumpled and all fell out, broadly going their own way over open borders, at the first sign of pressure.


Italy and Greece have very much been left to it.


I can't see Brussels facing down the Russian military and acting on a widespread and coordinated scale. Many of them talk big, but add nothing (Luxembourg???), the Germans don't leave bases and many of the Eastern states seem to exist to keep the DFAC in business.


The Dutch, Danes, Poles and Estonians will end up doing the hard work, with the French making a valuable contribution, if they are in the mood.

If the Germans are in charge of equipment, the French get catering, the Dutch get finance and the Italians sort out the uniforms, it would be a great idea. The reality will be that the Italians get strategy, the French get organisation, the Greeks get finance and the Germans get public relations.

Why did you insinuate is it trumps "fault"?

If anyone it's those countries that have been free-loading for years if not decades.

Seems to be a lot of people jumping on a particular bandwagon these days...

https://youtu.be/westm8bmf2E

glad rag. I didn't insinuate anything of the sort. What I was pointing out is that NATO (read Europe) is dependent on the US, and until recently Article 5 was taken as a given. If a certain president wishes to suggest that may not be the case, then that is just a fact. No need to "insinuate" anything.

While I agree, the question I ask, is why is euro security dependent upon the US? I'm skeptical of a stand alone euro army, but very much in favor as it makes the ones with the greatest concerns the ones leading.

West Coast. Simple numbers. The US is a superpower, whatever that may mean. If a certain occupant of the Kremlin decided to invade one of the Baltic States, he would be much more confident if the US wasn't going to come to the rescue. Despite what some people may say, the US saved Europe's bacon twice in the last century, and I'd like to think they would be prepared to stand up if needed in this. Given the power of the US, simply being there is probably deterrent enough. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" Theodore Roosevelt I believe.

I don't disagree, but you're not dealing with the red menace anymore, Vlad isn't a superpower. A unified Euro force can oppose any threat to its security.

What I and others in the US tire of is shouldering the burden of Europe's defense while many euro nations refuse to pay their share. This despite the threat being far greater to them than it is to the US. Europe has become far too comfortable and expectant of US commitment to the point that it was viewed as inappropriate when Trump (and I Believe Obama previously) asked NATO nations to wedge their wallet open and quit being free riders.

Brussels currently drawing up a draft treaty amendment that member states will have to sign agreeing to the EU army entering their territory any time it wants. Seriously scarey. So glad the UK is on the way out just in time.

I agree with your gripe about the cost, West Coast. There are too many free-riders on this side of the Pond. Both Trump and Obama made it very clear that the US expects European states to pay their way.
I'm afraid though that a unified Euro force would never happen. There is never, at least in the lifetime of most of us on this forum, going to be a United States of Europe. There are big cultural differences in the way the USA and any USE were/would be formed. You could do it; I don't think we can...and anyway it would be without us now.

The EU pushed through the Euro without the necessary political and technical measures in order for it to succeed - i. e. Fiscal union, a joint budget etc - on the supposition that crises would arrive that would mean these could then be put in place. Good luck with that, see Greece, Italy and the German resistance for that.

The current European army is another example of the EU Commission seeing no crisis as to good to waste - namely Brexit and Trump's omission of support for Article 5 - and attempting to do the same for an integrated military force. As stated the numerous problems of funding, procurement, chain of command - let alone a joint agreed foreign policy - is ignored.

The difference being Euro problems can be kicked down the road - a military emergency such as an invasion of a member nation being slightly more pressing.

IRRC it was Kissinger who asked, when there is an emergency, who in Europe do I call? In this case, if there is an emergency in Europe, who makes the call?

With Brexit, an advantage for the French is that they can lobby for the EU force to have an official language of French for the EU Armed Forces, since they don't have to accept the official language of NATO being English (oh, yeah, and French, OTAN) any more.
Good luck with that, though.
I think Herod's on the right track.
My only question is: how do you feel that Article V no longer applies? What leads you to that conclusion? I've not seen the US withdraw form the treaty, nor that language amended.

We're in agreement Herrod, for me specifically wrt a unified political will to use a notional euro army. One need only look at the paralysis in Europe's capitals during the 90s with genocide occurring in Europe itself. How much hand wringing occurred till Clinton forced the issue. To be clear, I think a Euro army would be superbly trained and led but would lack the cohesion needed, and of course would be logistically inadequate.

One can dream though.

ORAC, the piece that you link to perfectly illustrates the dichotomy that exists between the EU concept of defence and that of the NATO/UK one of European Defence. The former is mumbo jumbo that would not survive first contact. I wouldn't want to fight and die for the EU, and suspect that goes for many in the armed forces of European States. In contrast the armed forces of the UK and USA have fought repeatedly for European freedom, and sadly not for the last time I fear.

The EU carries the seeds of its own destruction. If it continues pushing for ever closer unity then "unforeseen consequences" will follow as sure as night follows day. The UK will be well out of it, as will others who choose to follow our example.

Chug

Without descending to Jet Blast I'd only observe that for the last 65 years people in the UK have been forecasting the "imminent" collapse of the EU but it seems to carry on and even grow - and grow closer ............

I don't think it's jealousy or envy - I just think we see the world in different ways and we REALLY don't understand their commitment to the idea

HH, what I don't understand is how one can commit to something that was never spelled out but devised and revised behind closed doors. That may suit the "Continental System" way of thinking but is hardly conducive to inspiring democratic confidence, and will only work as long as it works. Every time there is a major woopsie like the Ukraine, like Greek default, the fault lines become only too apparent. Eventually they'll run out of filler...


As for 65 years of forecasting the imminent collapse of something that wasn't around then, how does that work?

The Iron & Steel Community - the precursor to the EU - statred in 1951 with the Treaty of Paris and had been under discusion since 1950

The aim was to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible" which was to be achieved by regional integration, of which the ECSC was the first step. The Treaty would create a common market for coal & steel among its member states which served to neutralise competition between European nations over natural resources, particularly in the Ruhr.

IIRC Churchill approved but said it was not for us - we after all had the Empire & Commonwealth............

I've never really liked the EU set up - but it survives and prospers in spite of everything - and we continually misunderstand the commitment of other people to it. The British always saw it as a Common Market whereas Europeans saw it as something much bigger. Amazing that both sides can still misread the runes after all this time...............

I'm not convinced that Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Belgium are prospering. I wonder when how they are going to fund this new found enthusiasm for military commitment?

HH:-
So how does that work then, given that civil wars are the most bitter and the most divisive of all wars? Doesn't ever closer unity and a European Army make war more thinkable and more materially possible?

Don't ask me but I'd guess they say they've had 65 years without a war in W Europe and in the period before we'd had two that wrecked vast swathes of the place..................

All I know is that if I had moved the whole of the vast Harry fortune from pounds into euro when they started in 1999 I'd be 25% richer.....

and worse there are only 2 years the 18 since when staying in pounds was better than converting to euros

HH:-
Shouldn't that read that they had two that wrecked the place, both of which started in Europe? Of course one must add that the EU received the Nobel Peace Prize for not starting a third one...yet.

Speaking as that most contemptible of all military species, a Cold War warrior, didn't NATO have something to do with that? When does it get its prize?

You are assuming that you would have had a job for all that time which vast swathes of the EU didn't.

I think Chugalug covered the other bit

Isn't the British Army an example why an EU army actually might work. I mean, there are Welsh, Scotts and even some lost Irish in the armed forces...

Personally, I believe that an EU army is far away. Further cooperation between EU member states will happen more and more, but Juncker as Commander in Chief? hahahaha

TG:-
Well it might be, but perhaps not an ideal example. The British Army started out as various English Armies which over some hundreds of years dominated and defeated the armies of the nations that you mention.

That process has been part of European history as well of course, but every empire so formed has fallen in due course. That might be seen as more of a warning to the United Kingdom rather than a justification for a European Army...

Well according to the conspiracy theorists on social media the EU Army already exists and it's HQ is at RAF St Mawgan. Funny as I haven't noticed one lying around. We did have a bilateral exercise with 3 Div and the French 4 years ago, so perhaps they got the wrong idea?

Before the EU attempts to create a parallel military organisation to NATO, why don't they first cut their teeth on solving the human tragedy that's happening in the Med? The EU has a shameful policy vacuum regarding the migrant drownings.
This drive for an EU Army is another piece of vainglorious window-dressing by the unelected EU apparatchiks.. useful for parading through Brussels - and little else.
I think some of the Brussels suits actually believed the citation when the EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (shorely shome mishtake) in 2012 for "the successful struggle for peace and reconciliation and for democracy and human rights". That Messrs van Rompuy, Barroso and Schulz had the brass neck to accept this award beggars belief.
We are well out of this nonsense.

You are correct, there are many very notable Welsh, Scots and Irish members of the British Army.


However, a look through the annals of history suggests there have been a great many New Zealanders, Australians, South Africans, Canadians, Sikhs, Nepalese and other Commonwealth members of British Forces who have made significant contributions to the defence and security of both the UK and Europe. Not forgetting the Americans under their own flag.


It seems to me that Europeans continually cash cheques in words and deeds which the US, UK and Commonwealth end up guaranteeing with blood.

The one factor they all had in common was that they were Anglophones (I'm including the Scots in there!:E)

I've always had a soft spot for the Irish. Large numbers of them deserted from the Irish Army in WW2 to join the British Army even though I doubt they had much love (if any) for the British. Always up for a fight and good men too have on your side.
Anybody know if there is a memorial to them anywhere? Doubt there is anything in Ireland especially after the persecution they suffered on returning home.

"why don't they first cut their teeth on solving the human tragedy that's happening in the
Med? The EU has a shameful policy vacuum regarding the migrant drownings."

They did - they suggested everyone contribute to the naval releif effor and also take their share of the refugees who made it.................. stoney silence from a lot of places

Accepting unlimited numbers of refugees/migrants into Europe isn't the answer though. They're non-viable in cultural and economic terms.
I think the EU should examine the case for alleviating the causes of their plight in situ.. I'd much prefer that the EU set up humanitarian relief stations in the countries concerned where possible.
The last I heard the EU was paying Turkey 3bn€/year to accept the refugees.
Sorry for thread drift.

For the reasons I've given above I think there is a fair chance a European army will gradually evolve - especially once the British leave

To start with it'll be like a UN force but ever so gradually the weaker countries will become dependent on it (and won't be able to afford modern kit) paying a proportion of the cost. It's a logical extension of the NATO aircraft sharing type arrangement

It'll take 30 years but I think they may well get there

There has not been a demonstration of the necessary will to fund their own defence in the last 65 years, I'm not convinced that the next 30 years will lead to any surprises unless the USA walks away and leaves Europe to it.

Some demonstration of will and unity

Hmmm. Debatable whether that was due to a large existential threat to the East, a large ally to the west, a large functioning military alliance which pre-dates the EU, public reaction to the first two truly industrial wars or a combination of the above. Or the EU.


The rather nasty civil wars in the Balkans were not exactly an advert for the decision-making or military capabilities of the EU either.