Will/shall Europe ever have a real european army ?

[Deleted]

No god no

In all senses of a defensive army, that is exactly what NATO is.

The only countries not in NATO in Europe, that are not landlocked or geographically irrelevant (Ireland), are Sweden and Finland.

Both of these traditionally consider themselves non-aligned. However, every year, especially Sweden which is the more important of the two due to its Baltic territory, moves closer to NATO. Despite their non-aligned status, they both signed a host nation agreement to allow NATO to use their territory and they just recently entered into a cooperation agreement with each other in event of war from an external threat. This is directly as a result of Russian actions in the area.

[TwoNineMarine]

I don't know a ton about European culture, but I definitely see this being a problem.

People will always favor their home country. And I imagine the bickering on who is in charge, so on and so forth, would become very tiring after a while.

And as much as people may shout for a "Unified Europe" they still love their countries independence. To merge them all together would take away from that.

[Deleted]

I rather the Germans take the charge cause they have more experience

The current German military is a joke, the most experienced forces in Europe right now are the British and the French, neither one of those countries would cede control to the other.

[TwoNineMarine]

The current German military is a joke, the most experienced forces in Europe right now are the British and the French, neither one of those countries would cede control to the other.

Agreed. The Germans haven't done much of note lately military wise. I chatted with the British SAS over in Iraq quite frequently. Cool dudes.

[Deleted]

They usually give everything to Belgium because we seem so neutral.

I'm also not really swayed by the machoism that the MIC tries to push by pretending that the most active armies are the best ones. Only a short while ago the american represenatives in the NATO were pretty much laughing at the British army and condescending the UK for barely contributing to the war effort in the Middle-East. A cartoonist made fun of it by depicting the British army as a dog fetching a ball from it's american Masters.

I think that was George Michael's video

[Deleted]

And as much as people may shout for a "Unified Europe" they still love their countries independence. To merge them all together would take away from that.

Do we? Sure, we love being independent and not being Russian satellite states, but I think most European federalists are European federalists because we genuinely want one European country.

[TwoNineMarine]

Do we? Sure, we love being independent and not being Russian satellite states, but I think most European federalists are European federalists because we genuinely want one European country.

And I'm not doubting that those people exist. But the Europeans I know, who I've interacted with, and who I see on the various forms of media seem to have a lot of love for their particular countries. Would that be enough to prevent them from wanting a Unified Europe? I don't know. But I certainly get the vibe that they would not want something like that.

Obviously I don't live there so I can't speak to it in that sense.

[Cyberowl]

Isn't the UK supposed to overtake Germany in the 2020's when it comes to economy? They already have the stronger military.

Try 2030. But god knows how accurate those predictions are. If economy could be calculated so accurately, we would never have a crisis...

[Kellhound]

I rather the Germans take the charge cause they have more experience

They have the most modern experience losing major wars.

[bufferunderrun]

In all senses of a defensive army, that is exactly what NATO is.

The only countries not in NATO in Europe, that are not landlocked or geographically irrelevant (Ireland), are Sweden and Finland.

Both of these traditionally consider themselves non-aligned. However, every year, especially Sweden which is the more important of the two due to its Baltic territory, moves closer to NATO. Despite their non-aligned status, they both signed a host nation agreement to allow NATO to use their territory and they just recently entered into a cooperation agreement with each other in event of war from an external threat. This is directly as a result of Russian actions in the area.

i don't understand why people keep talking about NATO, 90% of it's budget is from usa, 90% of it's force are from usa, infrastructures, logistics, everything is largely payed and runned by the usa and obviously most decisions are taken by them.

[Deleted]

i don't understand why people keep talking about NATO, 90% of it's budget is from usa, 90% of it's force are from usa, infrastructures, logistics, everything is largely payed and runned by the usa and obviously most decisions are taken by them.

I don't understand why people like you keep ignoring its MANDATE. The very reason for its existence: if any member of NATO is attacked, all members have to defend. There is no more powerful a military alliance or army in the world.

Why do you think Russia and the former Soviet Union hate it so much that it has been the primary focus of their military and foreign policy since its inception?

[GennGreymane]

I don't understand why people like you keep ignoring its MANDATE. The very reason for its existence: if any member of NATO is attacked, all members have to defend. There is no more powerful a military alliance or army in the world.

Why do you think Russia and the former Soviet Union hate it so much that it has been the primary focus of their military and foreign policy since its inception?

Pretty good deterrence

[anakin57]

I don't see that ever happening either. Should Russia/China/name your adversary try and seriously swoop in for a big land grab or takeover, the EU would all band together with an alliance, but I don't ever see a permanant joint force.

[bufferunderrun]

I don't understand why people like you keep ignoring its MANDATE. The very reason for its existence: if any member of NATO is attacked, all members have to defend. There is no more powerful a military alliance or army in the world.

Why do you think Russia and the former Soviet Union hate it so much that it has been the primary focus of their military and foreign policy since its inception?

the fact that russia or other countries hate it is irrelevant, Nato is an alliance where the biggest actor is the USA and is under USA command this alone is making it something else than an hypothetical european army; there are also a number of limitation on the Nato operativity for example why nato not intervened in falklands war? Because the treaty specify that collective self-defense is only applicable to attacks on member state territories north of the Tropic of Cancer. As you can see Nato is totally different in both shape and missions than a proper exclusive European Army.

[Acelius]

The current German military is a joke, the most experienced forces in Europe right now are the British and the French, neither one of those countries would cede control to the other.

Really? I always thought the German military was quite capable.

[Xeley]

Yes to a Unified EU and yes to the Army. However, of course, in steps. Modern day Germany is a great example of how a federal "nation" is completely viable.

Independence to me really doesn't have an intrinsic value, so it's time to look beyond borders and into unifying.

EDIT: When it comes to the culture aspect I really don't think it's a problem not able to be overcome. I mean, look at Germany again. Souther Germany and Northern Germany have a completely different culture, yet united in the early 1900s (?) from all the independent states and is today a powerful nation. Same goes with the USA. I refuse to believe that the southern states and the northern states share culture more than the fact they live in the same nation and are anglo-saxon for the most part. Just look into your own countries, there will be areas where the culture is different from the other. Should we divide all those areas into independent nations? I don't think anyone would really say that.

I mean just look at it, I'm from Stockholm, being mid-south Sweden, being Sweden, being Scandinavia, being the Nordics, being Europe, being the world and so forth. It's just going a few steps further than nations already have by binding together different areas that don't share culture into a state.

[Shiny212]

Which is a good thing. Independence of European countries is the largest obstacle for European prosperity.

OT: Europe should have one, but will? Eh... don't think we will have any serious army, USA supports us enough.

That independence is also the thing giving many of the those European countries prosperity.

[Zarc]

Yes on the will and yes on the shall. In a future federal European Union it makes sense that the military is placed at the Union level of government and consolidated to get as much military might as possible out of whatever amount of euros we spend on it. Hopefully then we could have a military that is closer to the American in strength and as a result be able to take a larger responsibility for our own defense, instead of relying as much on the United States as we do today. Rest assured, the path to this reality is already under way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita...European_Union

[Zstr]

don't think we will have any serious army, USA supports us enough.

and EU still pay them, so your taxes money go into US's pocket

[Deleted]

Really? I always thought the German military was quite capable.

Nope, they are in a shit state.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...e-Taliban.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...r-9771197.html

Despite producing excellent hardware they cannot maintain it because of a shit budget.