Future of Europe Group - European Army

[Zoranon]

It is inevitable. Nations have been condensing from smaller into larger for centuries and benefiting greatly from it. It is inevitable.

Uh what?? So I just dreamed about the Austro-Hungarian empire breaking up, about the civil war in Jugoslavia and numerous other examples I suppose.

A little hint, there may soon be more countries in Europe, not less (seems a nice toss up between Scotland, Catalania and Flandres right now)

[Catta]

It is inevitable. Nations have been condensing from smaller into larger for centuries and benefiting greatly from it. It is inevitable.

Not really...

[Deleted]

I personally want the United Kingdom to stay independent, because we have so much history and I don't want it to be gobbled up and forgotten, but also the fact that the EU makes you pay so much to be in it, but you get so little in return. Sure you get free trade with EU member states but the current situation is that every country in Europe is broke except for Germany. I'd rather see the EU just be something for European nations to trade, because what its turning into is something I do not want.

And yes, I want the UK to leave the EU and just be a trade partner like Norway

Another victim of populist rhetoric. The UK is one of the countries who pays the least to the EU in % of GDP.

A single EU military with a single budget would be very beneficial. Most EU militaries pale in comparisson to the other world powers, we need more colaboration to achieve better results and a single military is the correct step.

[Zoranon]

Another victim of populist rhetoric. The UK is one of the countries who pays the least to the EU in % of GDP.

A single EU military with a single budget would be very beneficial. Most EU militaries pale in comparisson to the other world powers, we need more colaboration to achieve better results and a single military is the correct step.

Who would said army be responsible to, by doing this you would take away one of the basics of a democratic state - the control of the military by the civilian population.

[Deleted]

Who would said army be responsible to, by doing this you would take away one of the basics of a democratic state - the control of the military by the civilian population.

To the european parliament/council of the European Union and to the member states.

The comission, together with both legislative chambers would lesgislate on the budged. The member states would decide what to do with it, together with the high representative of the union for foreign and security policy.

[Wilian]

Not a chance:P If Russia or China attacks, we could always give them Finland as a bargaining chip..

Strong words from someone living in a country whichs entire downtuned defensive plan on about massive invasion is having Finland as a barrier. <.<

[Deleted]

Digusting. EUSSR incoming.

[Catta]

Strong words from someone living in a country whichs entire downtuned defensive plan on about massive invasion is having Finland as a barrier. <.<

Sweden has an extensive mountain defense network from the cold war i believe...

[Deleted]

I'd only be interested in a union with the, let's be honest, better countries.

A union between France, Germany and Britain could potentially be very worthwhile. Unfortunatley as long as you have countries like Greece in there the union is going to be unstable.

A loss of sovereignty would be very unpalatable within Britain. There has been talk in the past few days of a referendum upon our membership of the EU. Let us hope it happens.

[Wilian]

Sweden has an extensive mountain defense network from the cold war i believe...

Too bad the mountains are facing Norway in the west, not the coast to east and south with some of the largest cities, you know, the way those evil ruskies would come from after Finland bravely defended for day or two. :P

Besides, 2005 they could effectively only mobilize 65 000 troops and 40 000 some home defense dudes within a month and they have been downtuning it more and more as the years have gone by.

Sure they have reserve of 1 500 000 men but mobilizing them all is entirely another matter.

[Catta]

Too bad the mountains are facing Norway in the west, not the coast to east and south with some of the largest cities, you know, the way those evil ruskies would come from :P

Besides, 2005 they could effectively only mobilize 65 000 troops and 40 000 some home defense dudes within a month and they have been downtuning it more and more as the years have gone by.

Sure they have reserve of 1 500 000 men but mobilizing them all is entirely another matter.

Most likely meant for guerrilla warfare - since the Russians is a nation 10 times more populous than Sweden and far larger...

[Wilian]

Most likely meant for guerrilla warfare - since the Russians is a nation 10 times more populous than Sweden and far larger...

Seems like Wikipedia is saying that they now have only capability of mobilize 2160 soldiers and 37000 home guard defense dudes right away. Rather a sharp dive.

[Jackmoves]

Seems like Wikipedia is saying that they now have only capability of mobilize 2160 soldiers and 37000 home guard defense dudes right away. Rather a sharp dive.

Thats not quite correct, but since the disintegration of the Soviet Union our defense budget has shrunk dramatically. In the 1960's the country had the world's(!)4th largest airforce with over 700 planes. Today we got around 130 just to take an example.

If you compare that to any other nordic country it's still significant though, Denmark got 30 and Norway 50 F-16's, Finland is probably about the same. Norway and Sweden both spends a lot more on the military then Finland, not bashing, just saying :P...

The plan is to have eight manoeuvre battalions (mechanised infantry), 2 artillery battalions, 2 anti-aircraft battalions, 2 engineer battalions, 1 ranger battalion, 4 air divisions (about 150 units of JAS 39 Gripen), 1 helicopter battalion, and a militia of about 22,000 men and various logistics, SF and management units by 2014. Not sure about the navy, but we got 2 marine regiments atm.

The new military organization will only number around 50,000 men(not including home guard), but they will be fulltime employees, professionals. The Home Guard has always played an important role in Swedens defense though.

The problem right now is filling up those battalions, not sure if there is enough time to reach the goals. Its only been two years since we scraped the conscription system.

[Wilian]

If you compare that to any other nordic country it's still significant though, Denmark got 30 and Norway 50 F-16's, Finland is probably about the same. Norway and Sweden both spends a lot more on the military then Finland, not bashing, just saying :P...

I know Sweden spends more but that due to high tech military tech stuff (like those mobile artillery cars you have with some precision point firing) rather than enough quantity on to actually defend the country of that size in believable manner. Sure guerrilla stuff can be held up a long time but when million or more marches to the shores with thousand tanks of back up they can clean rather large area neatly up.

As for air forces, Finland has roughly a bit over 100 planes in service currently, half of them being modified F-18 Hornets but that's not really reliable because Russia has such air capability it would render ours useless in direct fights. We have tons of from ground to air missiles and our air defense is based around them being quickly deployed in required areas (can be set up in just under hour).

The tactic of battle is sort of guerrilla'ish too with the exception that we have large landmasses of forests and lakes they have to cross for effectively reaching anything important and due to island density we can pretty much mine off all routes to inland through sea.

[Jackmoves]

OT: Jackmoves, what "report" are you talking about? In fact, is this thread motivated by some recent political activity concerning this particular topic? If yes, could you please link me a news report on that or something?

Well it was released mid sep, I only just had time read it.

Here is a summery I found

Europe's most powerful countries call for elected EU president
Germany, France and nine other of Europe's most powerful countries have called for an elected European Union president and an end to Britain's veto over defence policy in a radical blueprint mapping out the continent's future.

In a document released on Tuesday after a meeting between 11 foreign ministers in Warsaw, the bloc, which includes all the largest European countries outside Britain, charted a vision for the "future of Europe".

As well as calling for a single, elected head of state for Europe, the bloc demanded a new defence policy, under the control of a new pan-EU foreign ministry commanded by Baroness Ashton, which "could eventually involve a European army".

In order to "prevent one single member state from being able to obstruct initiatives", a reference to British opposition to a European army, the German-led grouping demanded an end to existing national vetoes over foreign and defence policy.

This would give the EU the power to impose a decision on Britain if it is supported by a majority of other countries.

The plan, which has the backing of Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Holland, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg and Portugal the plan, is likely to fuel calls for a British referendum on membership of the European Union.



The document also proposed sweeping new powers for the European Parliament and further splitting of the EU by creating a new parliamentary sub chamber for the 17 countries of the eurozone.

In a joint statement, Guido Westerwelle and Radek Sikorski, the foreign ministers of Germany and Poland, called for the creation of a single EU President, running the commission and overseeing regular summits, who is directly elected by voters in a pan-European vote "on the same day in all member states".

"For Europe to be a truly strong actor and global leader it needs a strong institutional setup," said Mr Westerwelle and Mr Sikorski. "It needs a directly elected president who personally appoints the members of his "European government'."

In another major change, the 11 countries urged that changes to European treaties should in future be adopted and implemented "by a super-qualified majority of the EU member states" instead of by unanimity, meaning treaties can no longer be blocked from entering into force by No votes in popular referendums.

The document follows last week's call by Jose Manuel Barroso for the EU to become a "federation" and growing calls in Britain for a referendum on any new European treaty or constitution.

A British Government spokesman said: "This is one contribution to the debate, which is just starting. The United Kingdom will play a full and active role in that debate."

Nigel Farage, the leader of Ukip, described the proposed EU constitution, which has emerged in response to the eurozone crisis, as a "new European settlement".

"It looks and is entirely hostile to the hopes and aspirations of this country. The government wants to negotiate, so does the Continent, but they are at cross purposes," he said. "We now know what they want, we know we won't get what we want, so now is the time to offer the people a choice on our membership of the EU."

The major intervention by five of six biggest EU countries will increase calls from the Conservative backbenches in the House of Commons for a referendum on Europe.

Steve Baker, the Tory MP for Wycombe, warned that proposals to strip Britain of its veto over defence or foreign policy would be "the end of the UK as an independent country".

"The EU is emerging as a fully-fledged state that is not under democratic control," he said. "Any idea of making these changes without the overwhelming consent of the British people would be criminal."

[Wilian]

Well, Finland is pretty anti-EU already so such high level integration wouldn't go too well with the general population over here.

[Jackmoves]

I know Sweden spends more but that due to high tech military tech stuff (like those mobile artillery cars you have with some precision point firing) rather than enough quantity on to actually defend the country of that size in believable manner. Sure guerrilla stuff can be held up a long time but when million or more marches to the shores with thousand tanks of back up they can clean rather large area neatly up.

As for air forces, Finland has roughly a bit over 100 planes in service currently, half of them being modified F-18 Hornets but that's not really reliable because Russia has such air capability it would render ours useless in direct fights. We have tons of from ground to air missiles and our air defense is based around them being quickly deployed in required areas (can be set up in just under hour).

The tactic of battle is sort of guerrilla'ish too with the exception that we have large landmasses of forests and lakes they have to cross for effectively reaching anything important and due to island density we can pretty much mine off all routes to inland through sea.

Yup, but we've pretty much written off a Russian invasion, I think we got some kind of defense agreement with all nordic countries though, "all for one"... but you know how that went in WW2 lol...

[Wilian]

Yup, but we've pretty much written off a Russian invasion, I think we got some kind of defense agreement with all nordic countries though, "all for one"... but you know how that went in WW2 lol...

Well, that was mostly because Sweden didn't have any army to speak of during WW2 but some volunteers did come over here to help Finland. Norway was occupied by Germany so it didn't really have much to say in anything.

And I'm not actually sure if the Nordic/Scandinavia defense pact thing is going on yet, I know it has been talked about for a very long time now but as far as I know, it has still remained on a level of speech rather than anything that really matters.

And I wouldn't write off Russian invasion, they have still very huge army around our borders just rock throw's distance away and they have been lately flexing their muscles in all different kinds of world events. <.<

[Pud'n]

How do those two even compare? Europe is a continent with 50 countries, all with different cultures, languages and customs.

As opposed to the U.S. where everyone is exactly the same no matter what area you live in?

[Wilian]

As opposed to the U.S. where everyone is exactly the same no matter what area you live in?

American? Different? What do you speak off, everyone knows there's only kind of American and it's this: