Support NeoGAF

[mnz]

Combining efforts would be logical, but I suspect that there would be resistance to doing so. Sweden and France may not be willing to give up their homemade production of aircraft, for example, to contribute to an expanded joint Eurofighter project. Even in the US the state by state politics of jobs plays a role in procurement. I suspect that will be difficult to overcome when national economies are involved, particularly as both Sweden and France have a goal of exporting some planes as well.

Having competition is a plus, it's still capitalism. And yeah, this will always get political. But in the end, contracts would probably get bigger, is what I mean.

Fervorous atlanticists (not a friend of them) tend to ignore the massive synergies that would bring the combined purchasing power and R&D capabilities of a common European army. Even a few countries banding together would make a huge difference.

Yep. And as opposed to now, this army would have one big lead purpose: defense against Russia. This hasn't been the case so far.
You can already see how it is changing European militaries:
http://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/daily_finland_planning_to_buy_new_counter_artillery_system/9399654
Artillery is coming back, tanks are coming back and even militias (like in Poland and the Baltics). Not what we've usually been investing in for the last 25 years.

 

[norinrad]

I'd rather Finland joined NATO - if current EU issues have proven anything, it's that european countries just aren't united enough not to try and weasel out of shared burdens when the time comes. While Finland still tried (and managed quite well, despite all the downsizing and bullshit like Ottawa mine treaty) to keep up its defence forces as a proper deterrent, other countries in Europe really dropped the ball with theirs - it'll take lots of time before that mistake can be corrected, and distancing Europe from US & NATO now would be a terrible mistake.

Strengthen NATO, and forget this nonsense about EU army.

Finland is sitting too close to Russia, its serves Finland's interests not to join NATO but to remain Neutral while it's still a part of the EU. Inviting NATO in could end up like Ukraine and that is way too close to Northern EU countries.

 

[LegendofJoe]

It's much more than that. What we have now are many small armies with different organisational structures and amounts of cooperation. That's not the same as one big entity. France especially has a philosophy of national independence.

If you actually start combining them, even just parts of them, their power will increase tremendously. Just think of combined R&D efforts, production capabilities, logistics, nuclear capabilities and the optimization of scale of all parts of the military. It's a whole 'nother level of power projection.
In a way it's a scary thought, because it's almost like a new world power.

Good, I've lost most of the faith I have in my own country to help make the world a better place. The EU is the work in progress vision of what the world should be striving to emulate. Why shouldn't it be a preeminent world power?

 

[Metroxed]

Will the European people get a vote on this EU army?

Do most (any?) countries vote on issues such as whether or not there should be a military and what the spending of such should be? You are already voting anyway; the national governments are democratically elected by the member states and said governments are what makes the European Council, which establishes the political priorities and objectives of the EU.

As it happens most people in Europe vote to moderate conservatives (the European People's Party), to social-democrats (Party of Europeans Socialists) or to liberal centrists (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe), who are all pro-EU integration and have a seat on the EU council. If people want something different they can vote to Eurosceptic political parties or even to anti-EU parties if they want out completely, so they can have a seat on the Council and direct the EU project in whatever direction they see fit.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

The aim of Rome's excellent roads was, above all else, to facilitate movement of the military.

Not really. Movement of supplies to support an army and stations to rest at are useful. But the main reason has to be economic in terms of moving goods and people, or both since slavery was huge.

 

[Kabouter]

Not really. Movement of supplies to support an army and stations to rest at are useful. But the main reason has to be economic in terms of moving goods and people, or both since slavery was huge.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/Roman-road-system

Roman road system, outstanding transportation network of the ancient Mediterranean world, extending from Britain to the Tigris-Euphrates river system and from the Danube River to Spain and northern Africa. In all, the Romans built 50,000 miles (80,000 km) of hard-surfaced highway, primarily for military reasons.

 

[jufonuk]

all the while Putin is laughing

 

[klonere]

Not sure how this is going to go over in certain countries. I know during any treaty vote (like Lisbon) a lot of Eurosceptic parties and people would scream about how Europe is going to steal your sons for an evil EU Army to go fight in a bog somewhere in the East. Now Merkel has lent that talking point an enormous amount of traction. I can see Le Pen/5 Star Movement making a lot of out of this politically.

 

[Ether_Snake]

I can totally see France and Germany integrating to a degree, plus Italy and Spain doing the same*. The biggest issue here would probably be France's interest in Africa.

*Edit: Or not, given procurement politics. That may be a wild shot.

Sure, all countries likely to leave the EU.

 

[klonere]

Not really. Movement of supplies to support an army and stations to rest at are useful. But the main reason has to be economic in terms of moving goods and people, or both since slavery was huge.

And where did the slaves come from I wonder 🤔

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I think a EU army would be good

And it might be a first step towards getting back on track to an ever closer union

 

[More Fun To Compute]

And where did the slaves come from I wonder 🤔

A lot of slaves in history were kept as slaves by their own people first through things like tribal raids or debt and sold outside to slavers. No need for a military when there is commerce.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Will the European people get a vote on this EU army?

Do you vote for your own national army? Do you have a direct say in the costs, which equipment, etc? No. You pick a political party that aligns with your views, and they decide. That is our democratic process.

Next to that, EU stuff goes through parliament there. So now you have 3 checks instead of 2. First your own lower house, then the other house, then the EU parliament. How many votes do you want on things?

As long as it comes to that.

Why wouldn't it come to that? They have the right to veto. Up to the country to use it or not. How they use it differs per individual country. Some might just have their government vote on it, maybe some will have a referendum. But nothing about this all is anti-democratic.

Anti-democratic has become this term used against the EU when you don't agree with things. But that happens all the time, because the majority decides. That is actually very democratic. If we would let a small group hold us hostage over these matters, I would consider that anti-democratic.

Not sure how this is going to go over in certain countries. I know during any treaty vote (like Lisbon) a lot of Eurosceptic parties and people would scream about how Europe is going to steal your sons for an evil EU Army to go fight in a bog somewhere in the East. Now Merkel has lent that talking point an enormous amount of traction. I can see Le Pen/5 Star Movement making a lot of out of this politically.

The military in all EU countries except for 4 - and 3 of those are under 20% actually needing to join, so basically only Greece has it - is a totally professional standing one without conscription. So if people don't want to join the EU army, they don't have to.

 

[Drazgul]

Finland is sitting too close to Russia, its serves Finland's interests not to join NATO but to remain Neutral while it's still a part of the EU. Inviting NATO in could end up like Ukraine and that is way too close to Northern EU countries.

We should've joined when the Baltic states did, that was a huge mistake on our part. Russians won't attack NATO countries as long as USA is still in charge, and being neutral also means that you're alone.

 

[klonere]

D
The military in all EU countries except for 4 - and 3 of those are under 20% actually needing to join, so basically only Greece has it - is a totally professional standing one without conscription. So if people don't want to join the EU army, they don't have to.

The people who are going to scream and shout and fearmonger about this issue don't give a damn about the facts. The mere existence of the concept within the EU is going to cause a lot of trouble.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

Will the European people get a vote on this EU army?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/20150201PVL00036/Elections

The EU is not some self-imposed rountable of oligarchs ruling all european countries. There are legitimate elections.

Sometimes it's like people are demanding a vote on every single issue in a country after you already vote for a leading party/coalition. Might as well throw out elections und just do a referendum on every thing that has to pass legislature, no matter how significant.

edit: plus the vetos.

 

[mnz]

Good, I've lost most of the faith I have in my own country to help make the world a better place. The EU is the work progress vision of what the world should be striving to emulate. Why shouldn't it be a preeminent world power?

It introduces many problems.
#1: Who has that power? You cannot take one nationality out of one coherent army, that wouldn't work. So you either have to give every member veto power, which could severely limit the whole thing, or they have to take part in operations basically against their own will, which can only lead to trouble.

#2: You immediately have one foot in a few geopolitical disputes. Russia is the biggest one, of course, but there's also stuff like ressources in the arctic that different nations claim, several conflicts in Africa, the middle east, the Balkans and the conflict between Turkey and Greece, for example.

The Cyprus conference is happening right now in Geneva. Think about that conflict alone: EU member with a Turkish breakaway republic with more than 30,000 Turkish soliders in it, two British military bases (won't be an EU member at that point) and it's like 100km off the coast of Syria.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

I don't remember ever voting on an Austrian army but we still have one. My country might be a dictatorship, help!

 

[fantomena]

Damn anti-democratic stuff, where we all elect our own leaders who then lead the EU, and we vote for the EU parliament also.

What is anti-democratic about the EU again?

Learn up on the EU before you make that statement.

People get to vote on their own armies? Didn't know we had that option.


Please elaborate, it's not like we vote our representatives in the EU, or that we vote our laws to follow from the EU. We Swedes voted no to the Euro, guess the Kronor we use today are just Euros in disguise since we didn't have a choice.

EU commission not elected and decisions that commits the countries that are members of EU is taken elsewhere.

There were quite a lot of storm when the Norwegian finance minister wanted to move the FSA to Brussel. There's neither "noone" here who want the EU to control the Norwegian asylum policy.

2015, 7/10 does not want EU membership: http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/sju-av-ti-vil-ikke-ha-norsk-eu-medlemskap/60750940
2016, 71% does not want EU membership: http://www.dagen.no/Nyheter/undersøkelse/71-prosent-av-nordmenn-sier-nei-til-EU-354436

 

[LegendofJoe]

It introduces many problems.
#1: Who has that power? You cannot take one nationality out of one coherent army, that wouldn't work. So you either have to give every member veto power, which could severely limit the whole thing, or they have to take part in operations basically against their own will, which can only lead to trouble.

#2: You immediately have one foot in a few geopolitical disputes. Russia is the biggest one, of course, but there's also stuff like ressources in the arctic that different nations claim, several conflicts in Africa, the middle east, the Balkans and the conflict between Turkey and Greece, for example.

The Cyprus conference is happening right now in Geneva. Think about that conflict alone: EU member with a Turkish breakaway republic with more than 30,000 Turkish soliders in it, two British military bases (won't be an EU member at that point) and it's like 100km off the coast of Syria.

Yeah, complicated doesn't even begin to describe things. And I'm out of the loop with what's happening in Cyprus. Is there something that I can read that summarizes the situation?

 

[mnz]

Yeah, complicated doesn't even begin to describe things. And I'm out of the loop with what's happening in Cyprus. Is there something that I can read that summarizes the situation?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/12/cyprus-peace-talks-geneva-greece-turkey-boris-johnson

Basically they are meeting in Geneva to talk about uniting the country. The fact that those three powers joined the talk is a good sign.

 

[Souldriver]

Well, regardless the details, I like the idea.

This crisis can either break the EU apart, or force it to become more united. Let's just say I greatly prefer the second option.

 

[ClosingADoor]

EU commission not elected and decisions that commits the countries that are members of EU is taken elsewhere.

There were quite a lot of storm when the Norwegian finance minister wanted to move the FSA to Brussel. There's neither "noone" here who want the EU to control the Norwegian asylum policy.

2015, 7/10 does not want EU membership: http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/sju-av-ti-vil-ikke-ha-norsk-eu-medlemskap/60750940
2016, 71% does not want EU membership: http://www.dagen.no/Nyheter/undersøkelse/71-prosent-av-nordmenn-sier-nei-til-EU-354436

The European Commission is there to ensure that every country has a say, no matter their size. They are nominated by the Council of the European Union, which are chosen representatives from your government. The members are also approved by parliament, which you vote for. This is like saying you don't get to pick your Minister of Justice, Military, Finance, etc, which nobody has a problem with for a few hundred years already.

Do you really want to pick every specific person in politics?

And that stuff from Norway is Norways business isn't it? From the government there that is chosen by the Norwegians.

The problem with the "anti-democratic" line is that you should then be in favor of the EU taking over more functions and have the EU parliament decide on things. But people also don't want that, since then their own country has less say. The EU can't win here.

 

[psychowave]

Would this increase national spending on defense? Because with the current situation in my country I wouldn't feel too good about that.

 

[nature boy]

EU commission not elected and decisions that commits the countries that are members of EU is taken elsewhere.

There were quite a lot of storm when the Norwegian finance minister wanted to move the FSA to Brussel. There's neither "noone" here who want the EU to control the Norwegian asylum policy.

2015, 7/10 does not want EU membership: http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/sju-av-ti-vil-ikke-ha-norsk-eu-medlemskap/60750940
2016, 71% does not want EU membership: http://www.dagen.no/Nyheter/undersøkelse/71-prosent-av-nordmenn-sier-nei-til-EU-354436

Each member-state has a commissioner and the president is nominated by the European Council (heads of government and state of each member-state) and approved by the European Parliament. How is this undemocratic?

You do realize Norway is a member of the EEA and what obligations it has to the EEA?

 

[fantomena]

The problem with the "anti-democratic" line is that you should then be in favor of the EU taking over more functions and have the EU parliament decide on things. But people also don't want that, since then their own country has less say. The EU can't win here.

Fuck no. I have no interest in EU deciding politics for us. Everything political in Norway from markets to border control to asylum policy to union rights should only be decided and controlled by the Norwegian people, not anyone in Brussel or any other places.

Im also against the EEA (European Economic Area) which Norway is a member off. Just recently the EEA committed tarriffcrushing.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

Fuck no. I have no interest in EU deciding politics for us. Everything political in Norway from markets to border control to asylum policy to union rights should only be decided and controlled by the Norwegian people, not anyone in Brussel or any other places.

Im also against the EEA (European Economic Area) which Norway is a member off. Just recently the EEA committed tarriffcrushing.

This nationalistic shit is so tiring.

 

[norinrad]

The problem with the "anti-democratic" line is that you should then be in favor of the EU taking over more functions and have the EU parliament decide on things. But people also don't want that, since then their own country has less say. The EU can't win here.

There seem to be a small issue though. You cannot impose the same policies on all the countries when it might work in some and have a different affect in others. This is one of the reason why wealth transfer is not happening, As the main benefactors of the coin has been Germany, Holland and maybe two or 3 other countries while the rest are forced to implement austerity measures that has largely screwed up their economies with a debt that keeps mounting.

 

[mnz]

That's a pretty black & white thinking. More of a narrative, actually.

You think the EU would exist if only 2 or 3 countries profited from it? What a joke.

 

[fantomena]

This nationalistic shit is so tiring.

Also, thing is, the left here is more anti-eu, anti-schengen and anti-eea than the right.

The strongest pro-eu party is a socialliberal party with currently 4-5% of the votes.

So I guess Norway is a quite nationalistic country when it comes to soveregnity and labour rights.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Fuck no. I have no interest in EU deciding politics for us. Everything political in Norway from markets to border control to asylum policy to union rights should only be decided and controlled by the Norwegian people, not anyone in Brussel or any other places.

Im also against the EEA (European Economic Area) which Norway is a member off. Just recently the EEA committed tarriffcrushing.

Nothing of this has anything to do with whether the EU is democratic or not. You might be against it. But it is not anti-democratic. Norway has its own government that decides whether they want to stay member of certain organisations that come with certain rules, obligations and restrictions. You can't always pick and chose what you get in those things.

There seem to be a small issue though. You cannot impose the same policies on all the countries when it might work in some and have a different affect in others. This is one of the reason why wealth transfer is not happening, As the main benefactors of the coin has been Germany, Holland and maybe two or 3 other countries while the rest are forced to implement austerity measures that has largely screwed up their economies with a debt that keeps mounting.

Well, yes. That is why we have a Commission and why countries can veto stuff. So the smaller ones don't get screwed over. As for the Euro, those countries did chose to join and it had benefits for them at that moment.

 

[Geeker]

Also, thing is, the left here is more anti-eu, anti-schengen and anti-eea than the right.

The strongest pro-eu party is a socialliberal party with currently 4-5% of the votes.

So I guess Norway is a quite nationalistic country when it comes to soveregnity and labour rights.

Christ, we are the most EU country of all if you look at number and speed of adopted directives and we have benefitted tremendously from it.

Also the two biggest parties are pro eea.

The control you want is only possible if you go full north Korea and shut down all trade. That means no more booze trips to the Eu, won't be very popular...

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Do most (any?) countries vote on issues such as whether or not there should be a military and what the spending of such should be?

Do you vote on your Army leader in national elections?

Do you vote for your own national army? Do you have a direct say in the costs, which equipment, etc?

I don't remember ever voting on an Austrian army but we still have one. My country might be a dictatorship, help!

All of these replies seem to be under the impression that the EU is a country...

 

[Peter Ian Staker]

Too little too late.
Any project like that will be killed in its crib now as are most further integration attempts.
This could have worked 10 years ago but now few really want to add further contributions to the EU.

 

[KillerMan91]

Also, thing is, the left here is more anti-eu, anti-schengen and anti-eea than the right.

The strongest pro-eu party is a socialliberal party with currently 4-5% of the votes.

So I guess Norway is a quite nationalistic country when it comes to soveregnity and labour rights.

Norway is practically EU country in all ways but in name. You even pay for EU for access to the single market. Only difference to EU countries is that you guys have no say in EU matters. Sounds like great deal! Well at least you have your independence right?

 

[ClosingADoor]

All of these replies seem to be under the impression that the EU is a country...

How is this relevant? It is a bloc of nations. If they want to make a joined army then they can if all countries agree on it. How those country agree can be different. Some might want to have their government vote on it, some might want a referendum. Doesn't really matter.

 

[Funky Papa]

Too little too late.
Any project like that will be killed in its crib now as are most further integration attempts.
This could have worked 10 years ago but now few really want to add further contributions to the EU.

An European Army is not happening any time soon. Integrated militaries of several countries may. Furthermore, said integration should reduce costs.

 

[mnz]

Too little too late.
Any project like that will be killed in its crib now as are most further integration attempts.
This could have worked 10 years ago but now few really want to add further contributions to the EU.

What makes you think that? There is broad support for the EU army. Question is just if it's broad enough and if it makes political sense.

 

[Sarek]

A sufficient EU army with a purely defensive nature wouldn't cost a lot.

There is no army that is purely defensive. Not an effective one at least.

 

[nature boy]

Too little too late.
Any project like that will be killed in its crib now as are most further integration attempts.
This could have worked 10 years ago but now few really want to add further contributions to the EU.

I don't think it's about creating an EU army, but a similar defense treaty similar to NATO with some investment in European defense projects (propping up Airbus and other European defense companies).

 

[Madness]

It's much more than that. What we have now are many small armies with different organisational structures and amounts of cooperation. That's not the same as one big entity. France especially has a philosophy of national independence.

If you actually start combining them, even just parts of them, their power will increase tremendously. Just think of combined R&D efforts, production capabilities, logistics, nuclear capabilities and the optimization of scale of all parts of the military. It's a whole 'nother level of power projection.
In a way it's a scary thought, because it's almost like a new world power.

You are assuming that people will willingly combine these things. Do the French really want to die for the Italians and do Spaniards want to die for Germans. It is why even with NATO, a lot of the countries part of the alliance rarely did more than logisitics support.

Power projection is actual force, with numbers and forward operating bases, clear chain of command, rapid mobilization of military. I just do not see any kind of main integration like that ANY time soon from Europeans. Some nations can barely handle austerity measures now. How will they handle having to start spending 2-4% of GDP on military per country again? Will Germany pick up the slack and make itself the dominant power? It already is the economic power.

NATO right now is pretty much the US response with France and the UK following.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

How is this relevant? It is a bloc of nations. If they want to make a joined army then they can if all countries agree on it. How those country agree can be different. Some might want to have their government vote on it, some might want a referendum. Doesn't really matter.

Carl was asking whether the European people will get to vote on this, and you're all pointing to the lack of a vote for national armies as justification for the lack of a vote on this one. It's not an equivalent situation.

Countries need armies. Trading blocks don't - it's not a foregone conclusion, and I don't find the false equivalence very persuasive.

 

[Steeven]

I would rather have an European army tied with significant expenditures than relying on Trump when shit hits the fan. Moreover, the EU would be able to protect its interests more efficiently.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Carl was asking whether the European people will get to vote on this, and you're all pointing to the lack of a vote for national armies as justification for the lack of a vote on this one. It's not an equivalent situation.

Countries need armies. Trading blocks don't - it's not a foregone conclusion, and I don't find the false equivalence very persuasive.

I don't get a say in what NATO does also. We give our governments the right to make those decisions for us.

I didn't get a vote in the integration of the German and Dutch armies, where they work together. I didn't get a vote in any deployment of our national armies or what our soldiers do there.

This call for letting the citizen have a vote in everything is just counter productive as far as I'm concerned. You vote. Then you pressure your government if they don't hold their word or kick them out next time. It's a pretty good system.

 

[norinrad]

I sometimes sort of measure the EU with how Belgium as a country is setup. Brussels has about what 19 mayors all who seem to have the power to derail policies?

 

[mnz]

You are assuming that people will willingly combine these things. Do the French really want to die for the Italians and do Spaniards want to die for Germans. It is why even with NATO, a lot of the countries part of the alliance rarely did more than logisitics support.

Power projection is actual force, with numbers and forward operating bases, clear chain of command, rapid mobilization of military. I just do not see any kind of main integration like that ANY time soon from Europeans. Some nations can barely handle austerity measures now. How will they handle having to start spending 2-4% of GDP on military per country again? Will Germany pick up the slack and make itself the dominant power? It already is the economic power.

NATO right now is pretty much the US response with France and the UK following.

I don't understand why it would need this much more spending (your idea is almost triple the current amount). Bases already exist in every country. The conclusion would probably be to prop up those on the edges of Europe and reduce forces in central Europe.

And we already have cross-country command structures. Through NATO, but also between countries like the Netherlands and Germany:
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/13745.2.0.0/germany-is-taking-over-the-dutch-army
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...ea-battalion-dutch-navy-integration/79845430/

This will not look like the US military, it will be integrated European forces that already exist into a larger frame with more common goals.

I sometimes sort of measure the EU with how Belgium as a country is setup. Brussels has about what 19 mayors all who seem to have the power to derail policies?

The EU has a lot of problems, but it's better at creating and implementing policies than many single countries. It's a bad example.

 

[kmag]

EU commission not elected and decisions that commits the countries that are members of EU is taken elsewhere.

There were quite a lot of storm when the Norwegian finance minister wanted to move the FSA to Brussel. There's neither "noone" here who want the EU to control the Norwegian asylum policy.

2015, 7/10 does not want EU membership: http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/sju-av-ti-vil-ikke-ha-norsk-eu-medlemskap/60750940
2016, 71% does not want EU membership: http://www.dagen.no/Nyheter/undersøkelse/71-prosent-av-nordmenn-sier-nei-til-EU-354436

The Commission is essentially the EU civil service (and contrary to popular belief it's a pretty small civil service in comparison to it's brief, with just 32,966 staff: the UK excluding NI has 418,343 at last count) Most if not all, civil services are not directly elected but are appointed by elected officials (which is the case here). It's different in that you don't normally get the civil service directly proposing legislation but that legislation still has to go through the Parliament. And each country then has a veto. The Commission has no power in of and as itself. All it's power is derived from the Council of Ministers (the elected representatives of the member countries) and the EU Parliament (the elected representatives of the citizens of Europe)

The EU is an extremely democratic system, far moreso than most of its memberstates.

 

[Croyles]

This call for letting the citizen have a vote in everything is just counter productive as far as I'm concerned. You vote. Then you pressure your government if they don't hold their word or kick them out next time. It's a pretty good system.

It is. I get the impression that many people nowadays are subconsciously advocating direct democracy.

 

[LegendofJoe]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/12/cyprus-peace-talks-geneva-greece-turkey-boris-johnson

Basically they are meeting in Geneva to talk about uniting the country. The fact that those three powers joined the talk is a good sign.

Thanks, it still seems like Turkey is asking for too much though. Hopefully a meaningful framework to build upon is still possible.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

I don't get a say in what NATO does also. We give our governments the right to make those decisions for us.

I didn't get a vote in the integration of the German and Dutch armies, where they work together. I didn't get a vote in any deployment of our national armies or what our soldiers do there.

This call for letting the citizen have a vote in everything is just counter productive as far as I'm concerned. You vote. Then you pressure your government if they don't hold their word or kick them out next time. It's a pretty good system.

More false equivalences! NATO is a military alliance. The EU is not!