But the hypothetical EU army WOULD be a military alliance...
What exactly are we talking about here?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Merkel warns 'eternal' US-EU ties not certain
- Thread starter Xando
- Start date
- Status
But the hypothetical EU army WOULD be a military alliance...
What exactly are we talking about here?
Frankfurter
Member
Which would threaten NATO (The US military industrial complex). Its a good call by Merkel but its not happening.
Peter Ian Staker
Member
Even if there is support (can you post any opinion polls on that one?) the whole thing will collapse as soon as they have to get into specifics.
For starters what the percentage of GDP will each country have to contribute? It sure as hell cant be like the NATO requirement of 2% which a lot of countries ignore.
Also it will become a nightmare to decide how such an army would be organized and called into action and what its mission should be. Would the EU parliament decide when a military intervention happens? Does it co exist with national armies or those get swallowed by it? What countries will have troops permanently stationed in them? How will units be organised? Will we have national or multinational units?
ClosingADoor
Member
But they can make the EU a military alliance, which is what this is mostly about. And then all members will contribute to that alliance like they do now with NATO. I think that is a good thing.
And well, looks like we actually are already anyway:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/mutual_defence.html
Right, i agree. EU army is highly unlikey. I was just responding to moving goal post arguments.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Again, a common European army comparable to a national one is not going to happen any time soon. There's no point to make a direct comparison to the NATO unless you are building castles in the sky (hey, speculation/alt-history is fun), misinformed or disingenuous.
What may (will?) probably happen in the short to mid term is an increasing integration of foreign armies based on their location and strenghts. Case in point, German and Dutch militaries coordinate on a number of issues, including an integrated tank division. Italy and Spain, both of them countries with significant navies and amphibious capabilities, have also cooperated a number of times, and I'm sure that Portugal could step in without even saying hi. The Nordics could also probably band very easily.
Another example of integration would be France and Germany picking an unified rifle for their armies. This would greatly reduce the logistics related to issuing and maintaining two or more different kinds of rifles. It should result in interoperability, more standardisation and reduced costs for all the parties involved.
Even if some countries prefer to keep certain weapons systems due to strategic concerns, many of them are common or can be easily standarised once they reach their end of life. In the end, there are not a lot of European companies building amphibious assault ships, main battle tanks and cruise missiles, and a number of nations basically have interchangeable requirements.
What may (will?) probably happen in the short to mid term is an increasing integration of foreign armies based on their location and strenghts. Case in point, German and Dutch militaries coordinate on a number of issues, including an integrated tank division. Italy and Spain, both of them countries with significant navies and amphibious capabilities, have also cooperated a number of times, and I'm sure that Portugal could step in without even saying hi. The Nordics could also probably band very easily.
Another example of integration would be France and Germany picking an unified rifle for their armies. This would greatly reduce the logistics related to issuing and maintaining two or more different kinds of rifles. It should result in interoperability, more standardisation and reduced costs for all the parties involved.
Even if some countries prefer to keep certain weapons systems due to strategic concerns, many of them are common or can be easily standarised once they reach their end of life. In the end, there are not a lot of European companies building amphibious assault ships, main battle tanks and cruise missiles, and a number of nations basically have interchangeable requirements.
QuicheFontaine
Member
And this is the whole point. The European people should get a yes / no vote on that. It's a fundamental change, so it's really not unreasonable.
LegendofJoe
Member
Austerity makes absolutely no sense for the EU economy (except in cases like Greece with severe fiscal mismanagement). It makes economic sense for countries like Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Austria, and even France to ramp up military spending. Thankfully Germany finally seems to have removed its head from the sand. I just hope it's not too late.
ClosingADoor
Member
See my edit, we are already obligated to defend each other if an EU nation is attacked. As it should be in a union.
More integration and cooperation between our armed forces should be a priority and is very useful so the EU doesn't always have to come knocking to the US when Russia acts up.
Peter Ian Staker
Member
Frankfurter
Member
Isn't that what NATO is?
I get what you are saying, but i think Quiche also has a point, don't dismiss him just like that.
ClosingADoor
Member
Yes, but the EU should be able to take care of its own without the US also. And that would strengthen NATO also since we would have a more effective army.
For over 50 years we have relied on the US to have our backs. And they do. But there is no 100% guarantee they want to foot the bill for another 50 years to this extend.
DarthMasta
Member
No, the European people shouldn't get a vote. European countries where there's a tradition of this sort of public consultation, yeah, sure, that's how the country works.
For other countries? You know, the ones where politicians get voted on to make this sort of calls and only make referendum's to cover their asses? The politicians should decide. That's what they're for.
Halph n Halph
Member
So this would be a military alliance (EU) within a military alliance (NATO) ?
Not all EU members are part of NATO
QuicheFontaine
Member
Article 42(7) does not require member states to take military action. It's limited to aid and assistance, and each member state is responsible for determining its contribution on the basis of what they deem to be necessary. It's not Art. 5 of NATO.
I agree, though what you suggesting would be dismantling NATO, its a threat to NATO and the US interests which they usually do all they can to defend. Another approach maybe just strengthening NATO by investing more into it from the EU, allowing the US not to carry the whole weight.
Frankfurter
Member
I'm just trying to say that this all comes down to national laws. Germany for example won't have a referendum, because referendums on the federal level aren't a thing, except when in comes to changes of the number/boarders/etc. of its own federal states.
ClosingADoor
Member
We can change it to that. Wouldn't be a bad thing.
I don't see the direct threat to NATO. If the EU wants to strengthen it's military, it would mean they spent more on it, which benefits NATO also. These resources will not be taken out of NATO, since there is so much overlap. If NATO calls on its members, those resources will be used.
QuicheFontaine
Member
"So what?", sums up the EU approach quite well(!).
Look, a poster said asked if the European people should get a vote on the formation of an EU army. He was dismissed on the grounds that people generally don't get a say in whether or not their country has an army.
I'm responding to that. I think it's a fundamental change to the EU and yes the people should get to vote on it. You are of course free to disagree with that.
Edit:
In your opinion! I'm also interested in the opinions of everyone else in the EU, and I suggest that the leaders of the EU should be too.
ClosingADoor
Member
That is what elections are for. These things take years to do. Political parties run on a platform for or against it. That is how we collect opinions from a country in most situations.
Referendums recently have shown that they are far from perfect. Small amounts of people show up and hold the country hostage with the result.
But what you are suggesting is a military alliance inside a military alliance no? They can propose laws to expand NATO's operations. What is the future purpose of NATO when the EU has created his own Military alliance? There would be calls to stop any little funding NATO gets from member countries, rendering NATO ultimately useless. Something the US would not like at all.
How should such an alliance be defined?
Good, now let's help loosening the tie from our side as well.
...
You trusted the US in any way before Trump?
...
Frankfurter
Member
Well, I said some will get a vote on this and some won't. Some countries require areferendum for this kind of a change, some don't, and in some it's actually impossible to have a referendum for this kind of a change (Germany for sure, don't know about others).
I'm not sure if we actually disagree on this, except that you seem to think that ALL countries should have a vote on this issue?
ClosingADoor
Member
Some EU countries are not NATO members. NATO is a defensive alliance of course, so it is only used when attacked. An EU army could maybe do more, depending on what the nations want it to be (this will take years to define), for example peacekeeping missions and interventions.
The problem NATO has is that countries don't spent enough on military overall. The percentage of GDP for some nations on their military is too little, so if something happens, the other countries need to pick up the slack. If those nations make their military spending larger through an EU army, that would benefit NATO also since they would be more prepared for when NATO is attacked.
QuicheFontaine
Member
They do? I've voted in every election I've been able to, and I don't think I've heard any party running on a platform either for or against an EU army.
Referendums may not be perfect, but you can use them to get an answer on a very specific question relating to a fundamental change.
Edit:
Regarding the small number of people thing, by all means have a minimum turnout requirement.
nature boy
Member
Don't you get that Merkel/EU doesn't trust the Trump administration and/or are going to play hardball to get the Trump administration back on their sides?
NATO becomes irrelevant if Trump decides it doesn't want to be a part of it. And no serious foreign leader decides to bet the US Congress will go behind the administration's wishes.
Bottom line: the US is becoming a banana republic and countries need to hedge their bets.
ClosingADoor
Member
Because it is not an issue at the moment? You can bet that once actual proposals for an EU army appear that need to be approved by the nations, political parties will make their stance clear on it. These are not issues that will be suddenly be taken care of within a year.
LOL, self interests and spying shenanigans aside. I think they are a good partner for the EU.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
How do you even begin something like this?
In the United States there is one language. It's easy to translate the same protocols across everything. Soldiers stationed in Texas can effectively operate vehicles, procedures, take orders and do any task no matter where they are.
In Europe you have many different languages, and decentralized systems not to mention varying degrees of tactics, and procedures. Could you even imagine French troops being deployed in Poland and serving a Polish commander? Or Portuguese peace keeping forces in Greece?
A joint EU army would be a monumental task. It's not if it should or shouldn't be done. I think the manner of the ways think has gone in the last 7 years, it has to. I wouldn't have been for a EU army 7 years ago, but I am now.
In the United States there is one language. It's easy to translate the same protocols across everything. Soldiers stationed in Texas can effectively operate vehicles, procedures, take orders and do any task no matter where they are.
In Europe you have many different languages, and decentralized systems not to mention varying degrees of tactics, and procedures. Could you even imagine French troops being deployed in Poland and serving a Polish commander? Or Portuguese peace keeping forces in Greece?
A joint EU army would be a monumental task. It's not if it should or shouldn't be done. I think the manner of the ways think has gone in the last 7 years, it has to. I wouldn't have been for a EU army 7 years ago, but I am now.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Some do, some don't. The thing is, this wasn't an issue until very recently, so it stands for reason that many parties in the Union didn't think too much about this. Only now this is starting to become something resembling a topic of conversation.
For what is worth, last time I voted in a general election I did so for a party that explicitly called for more integration among European armies. So it is not like this is something that doesn't happen.
Nearly all armies in the Union follow NATO standards already and their officers speak a common language (usually English, but also French and German depending on the region). Further, many countries even operate the same weapons systems (IE: Spain, Germany and Poland use Leopard tanks). They routinely collaborate and participate in training exercises without major issues.
Not when their self-interests harm you directly.
Uh, this already happens without major issues both within NATO and various European missions in for example Mali.
Most Europeans are very proficient in English.
Again, this is already a thing. Working language is English. Combined military exercises happen regularly. In Afghanistan, Mali and many other countries we are already working together directly, but also in Europe:
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/
They are. But if the german assessment of Trump is correct there is a chance they won't be forever.
I mean a member (Bannon) of the upcoming US goverment is actively trying to create divisions and hate by creating fake news to influence germanys(and other EU countries) elections. That's not that much different from how the russian goverment is operating only that the US is supposed to be our allies.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Hmm, I suppose so. But do you at least agree with the principle that the people should have a say? That's what I was responding to initially.
Fair enough. This is kind of moot for me, being in the UK, anyway I suppose.
Thats nothing new, they used to do this back in the day and they will do everything to make sure the EU integration fails, because succeeding would mean a shift in the balance of power. I still think they are a good partner compare to say Russia and China.
English is already used as a common language. Equipment can be standardised. Command structures can be put into place.
It's a question of political will really. With a reluctant ally in the form of Trump and a belligerent Russia on the doorstep, that will could be found.
This. People don't get it, Russia will go as far as you let them.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
are you referring to something other than the article, because the article doesn't mention Trump outside the headline.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
It's not surprising that Merkel would dislike Trump, but this is a terrible article. It makes fairly detailed claims about what Merkel thinks without quotes, 2nd hand sources, or even circumstantial evidence.
Like this:
This is pure tabloid.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
To add to that, Israeli media is reporting that the American intelligence community warned Israel's that Trump's government is not to be trusted as it may leak information to Russia, meaning that it could find its way to Syria and Iran.
US intel sources warn Israel against sharing secrets with Trump administration.
The damage to America's international prestige is already significant. Allies remained close to America even during the worst of the George W. Bush administration, but there's a real chance that they may look for new alliances given the increasing chance of America turning into an unreliable partner. In a way, Putin is already winning. It's now up to the EU to ensure that this situation doesn't result in Russia increasing its influence in the region.
LegendofJoe
Member
Growing up post Cold War I didn't learn a lot about Russia coming through school. Is anyone here versed in Russian culture? I've always been confused as to why they're so hostile to the rest of Europe.
ClosingADoor
Member
I think everyone agrees that the nations involved need to approve it. How they approve it is up to them. I am not a fan of making everything in a referendum, since it gets hijacked by unrelated issues and anti-EU propaganda.
If a country wants to put it up to a referendum, they can. If not, they can have their chosen representatives vote for it in their parliaments. That is also a perfectly good way to deal with it.
I just don't agree that everything surrounding the EU (and other things) need referendums suddenly. We have perfectly good systems in place to elect people to handle these things and referendums seem to me mostly good things on local levels for more simple matters.
German industry is absolutely the strongest overall industrial economy in Europe. But their financial system is a shambles. The German three pillar banking system is weak - the international / private banks are Deutsche and Commerzbank, both badly run with tiny market capitalisations, and the Landesbanken are ineffective and unprofitable. The savings banks are pretty good at serving their customers.
The German financial system in no sense has conquered Europe, and actually is always getting bailed out by the ECB (the Landesbanken held loads of Greek bonds, Irish bonds, etc).
- Status