Europe needs own army, can’t rely on US forever – EU Commission President

[Manc Skipper]

It won't matter because the US won't leave.....

Leaving isn't something they're known for, true.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The only reason to have a European army is to have it be part of further integration political and economic. In other words a United States of Europe. With more states rights of course. The UK does not want to be part of that level of integration, and of course so do a large number of the other people in the EU states

 

[Auvergnat]

The only reason to have a European army is to have it be part of further integration political and economic.

And I thought the purpose of an army was defense and force projection.

How silly I am, of course not, an European army is for military parades, medals and uniforms.

 

[Chagos]

Because the UK amounts to a quarter of the European force and it would not make sense to build an European defense without them. And other countries could also leave the EU in a not so distant future, including France.

More generally the EU is on fire, so associating any initiative with the EU is a sure way to weaken this project in utero.

Either you want to strengthen the powers of the EU and consolidate it as an Empire, either you want to create an European defense. People like me will fight the first one but support the second one.

I have to agree here as well.

In a situation (that isn't existing since just yesterday) of how anyone is precluded from knowing the European stance on other matters on account of not knowing which number to call, how would that work out with a so called European army?

Just looking back at the not so distant demonstration of disparate economic interests (cloaked in the mantle of morality) governing individual attitudes towards supporting (or not) the invasion of Iraq, should illustrate what is or would be expectable.

Not very often we agree but I'm with you there.

seconded.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

And I thought the purpose of an army was defense and force projection.

How silly I am, of course not, an European army is for military parades, medals and uniforms.

And would Germans be supportive of say France using the Euro Army to attack Mali? Certainly not for an actual Euro Army to work, a supranational org would have to be formed, one with officials from each member state, an organization that could authorize the use of that army without having to go to for approval from the member states or you might as well stick with NATO.

Overall the individual member states may not be able to afford all the strategic forces that a modern military requires (heavy air lift for example) But as a larger supranational organization those assets could be used communally. If part of the French military, the French might reject the UK use of its A400s required for a resupply of British forces.

The only way an Euro army would work is through stronger integration among the member states who are willing to give up control over parts of what was its military

 

[Orly?]

SOLUTION

European 2nd ammendment.. Arm the population..

Huge game changer for any would-be invaders..

Expand military reserves and train em up, europe would be a much harder target..

 

[Auvergnat]

And would Germans be supportive of say France using the Euro Army to attack Mali?

An European army does not have to be incompatible with the existence of national armies.

That being said I do not want an "European army", I want an European commanding structure that can, when needed, requisition national bodies to form an European army, and impose to its members quotas of equipment and reserves. I also want pan-European projects such as an anti-missile shield.

or you might as well stick with NATO.

The USA are far bigger than any other NATO member and weighs too much in this organization, and they have their own interests. This creates a lot of problems. However this super-structure should be a member of NATO itself.

The only way an Euro army would work is through stronger integration among the member states who are willing to give up control over parts of what was its military

If the only way to have an European defense was through USE, then I would rather forget the idea altogether. I am not going to submit to your Empire to defend myself from another one. Most of Europeans do not want your United States of Europe. Try to shove your empire down our throats and more countries will leave.

Besides you are making the same mistake that was already done with the euro: you believe that necessity would lead to integration. But integration did not follow and now we have severely damaged the European economy. Do the same with an European army and we will lose a war.

The imperialist temptation has weakened Europe and it will put it on fire as people will rebel against their impotent governments, your imperial domination and your attempts to destroy their identities and cultures.

 

[Auvergnat]

European 2nd ammendment.. Arm the population..

Huge game changer for any would-be invaders..

That alone is not a viable solution, as a modern economy must also secure its inputs: trade routes and providers. This is also why defense must also incorporate force projection.

However arming the population would indeed be efficient against invasions or Muslim uprises.

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

Europe can't manage itself. This is an area of the world that was at war with itself almost continually for a thousand+ years, culminating in WW2. They only stopped once the U.S. military took up residence there. And we had good reason for that.

Yes, it costs us money to be their protector, but the costs of not doing so would be far greater. And they're not going to pay us to be there. They will put together an army/navy/air force of their own before they do that. Then suddenly we're looking at a situation not all that different from the way it was before we got there.

We maintain hegemony in part due to the presence of our armed forces in other nations. Our navy is particularly important to this role as it provides global stability in shipping lanes. If Europe has to provide its own, then suddenly it has a vested interest in those shipping lanes.

At the same time, it would diminish the American ability to project power globally.

The fact is, that until there are no bad guys left in the world, American military might is the greatest guarantor of stability.

I was waiting for a post like this, and it is correct.

Long ago I read an article that said since NATO formed, it was the longest period of peace Europe has ever seen in its lifetime.

Once NATO is gone, they will resort to their old bad habits again.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

An European army does not have to be incompatible with the existence of national armies.

That being said I do not want an "European army", I want an European commanding structure that can, when needed, requisition national bodies to form an European army, and impose to its members quotas of equipment and reserves. I also want pan-European projects such as an anti-missile shield.

Requisition would not work, in a time of crisis a member state could refuse to provide any military units. Leading to the collapse of the other forces. You can have an ETA ie Nato without Canada, US and Turkey but a combined military force without integration is not practical on anything other then small units

As for the European economy, the economies that are in the most trouble have had issues for decades, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Greece have from at least the 60s had reoccurring economic issues. Joining the Euro was not magically going to change how the economies were going to run. (poorly)

The USA are far bigger than any other NATO member and weighs too much in this organization, and they have their own interests. This creates a lot of problems. However this super-structure should be a member of NATO itself.


If the only way to have an European defense was through USE, then I would rather forget the idea altogether. I am not going to submit to your Empire to defend myself from another one. Most of Europeans do not want your United States of Europe. Try to shove your empire down our throats and more countries will leave.

Besides you are making the same mistake that was already done with the euro: you believe that necessity would lead to integration. But integration did not follow and now we have severely damaged the European economy. Do the same with an European army and we will lose a war.

The imperialist temptation has weakened Europe and it will put it on fire as people will rebel against their impotent governments, your imperial domination and your attempts to destroy their identities and cultures.

My attempts?

I am Canadian, if Europe decides become closer or not is not a real issue for me. I expect for the countries to have influence on the world stage in the future they will have to.

 

[Casper]

See, Trump is advancing Americas best interests already....

Are they really?

 

[Ganesh]

SOLUTION

European 2nd ammendment.. Arm the population..

Huge game changer for any would-be invaders..

Expand military reserves and train em up, europe would be a much harder target..

The idea of a mass of armed civilians standing off a modern military is a libertarian fantasy. Without the training,an effective communications net, logistics, and re-supply of masses of arms, civilians attacks would be suicidal, and in the end be nothing but a minor nuisance to a modern, effective military. And they wouldn't even be that to the threat of nuclear strikes, strategic bombing, or curtailment of supplies at sea.

 

[Orly?]

d in the end be nothing but a minor nuisance to a modern, effective military.

Oh yes, because I forget how effective a "modern effective military" is against guerrilla warfare tactics..

Minor nuisances, easily defeated, right..

 

[Auvergnat]

Long ago I read an article that said since NATO formed, it was the longest period of peace Europe has ever seen in its lifetime.

Once NATO is gone, they will resort to their old bad habits again.

The peace between us was never caused by the NATO. However it did help keeping Europe safe from Russia, and it may again do so in the future, and it helped foster a global free trade where everyone can buy and sell on the global markets, hence creating the Pax Americana. Only to this extent can NATO have contributed to the European peace.


As for the EU, neither did it create a peace between us. That peace was simply a logical evolution. On the other hand the EU is the one recreating a dominating empire and therefore a risk of war. And that USE project is supported by the USA.

First of all because it has weakened our economies and worsened the economic crisis, and revived the blame game and xenophobia between our nations (Germans say the South is lazy, the South blames the German policies imposed onto them). Second of all because it is a dominating force that now bosses around our countries and imposes a foreign power to us, with its own interests.

Third of all because the EU is an attack on our identities, just like imperialism has always been. Fascism was born in two recent nations with a weak identity (Germany & Italy), now the EU is meticulously destroying our identities, trying to undermine national identities with an Europe of regions, tying to increase immigration to replace our languages and cultures with an European culture and English language, in the hope that after it will have destroyed everything that ties us, people will only have the choice to feel European. But we will have wars far before that point.


Without the EU there would no risk for Europe to return to war. While it is true that Europe had been perpetually at war for most of its history, it was because of feudalism and vital crises. Since feudalism disappeared, the conflicts became far less frequent and normal. The jingoist and nationalist policies were mere remnants of feudalism, and were fated to eventually disappear. Add to this the fact that trade is now global rather than simply European, that as a result no coastal country could be held hostage of its neighbors (at least without the EU since this one takes us hostages), that none of us would risk poverty without the misled policies of the eurozone, that a war between us would be far too costly for the little benefit we would gain.

The main threat for the European peace is the EU, despite what the propaganda claims.

 

[Auvergnat]

The idea of a mass of armed civilians standing off a modern military is a libertarian fantasy. Without the training,an effective communications net, logistics, and re-supply of masses of arms, civilians attacks would be suicidal, and in the end be nothing but a minor nuisance to a modern, effective military. And they wouldn't even be that to the threat of nuclear strikes, strategic bombing, or curtailment of supplies at sea.

A mass of armed civilians cannot prevent the invasion of course. However it drastically increases the cost of occupation, especially in the long-term.

 

[Ganesh]

A mass of armed civilians cannot prevent the invasion of course. However it drastically increases the cost of occupation, especially in the long-term.

It depends on the situation. In areas that we can see strong control of territory, and effective military methods, civilian actions are of minimal effect. Israel, for example, maintains both of the above, and the only methodologies still available to dissenters there is suicide bombing, and even that has been minimal in recent years.

In a more pragmatic sphere, arming vast numbers of civilians can, and clearly has in the US, led to high numbers of deaths by people shooting each other, either on purpose or by accident, even absent any sort of invader.

 

[Ganesh]

Oh yes, because I forget how effective a "modern effective military" is against guerrilla warfare tactics..

Minor nuisances, easily defeated, right..

Reading can enhance memory, if that is an issue for you.

 

[Auvergnat]

It depends on the situation. In areas that we can see strong control of territory, and effective military methods, civilian actions are of minimal effect. Israel, for example, maintains both of the above, and the only methodologies still available to dissenters there is suicide bombing, and even that has been minimal in recent years.*

Israel is a good example: it actually proved very difficult for Israeli to to cohabit with Palestinians, they have had to segregate. Israel controls the borders of Palestinian territories, more than the territories themselves. This proves in my opinion that in an armed country the occupant cannot control the territory, that it has to shelter himself and lives under a specific mentality, and that weapons prevent the occupation to become pacific for decades at least.

Do you think Israeli would bear this cost if they felt they had a choice? If it was not their homeland, if they were not colonizing it, if this territory did not entail vital strategic considerations, and without the messianic cause?

In a more pragmatic sphere, arming vast numbers of civilians can, and clearly has in the US, led to high numbers of deaths by people shooting each other, either on purpose or by accident, even absent any sort of invader.

I do not deny this and so far I am still opposed to arming citizens for this very reason. But the rise of Islam in my country, France, may lead me to change my mind in the future if a civil war was coming, since we will not be able to count on our police as some will turn against us.

Arming the population may also become a solution in Eastern Europe against Russia, and in Greece against Turkey or a future Caliphate.

 

[Lafayette]

Staging our military assets in Europe has been a resounding success for both peace and business. Until they ask us to leave, we should stay put. If we don't, we'll end up back there anyway and it'll be under dire circumstances.

It is unwise for the EU to depend upon US forces for its defenses. (Russia is run by Tsar Vladimir, but why should he invade Europe where most of the money of his fellow plutocrats is stashed? (His own daughter has a large mansion in Biaritz (France).

Yes, Europe has its own Armies (plural), and the EU has the makings of consolidating into just one. But any Army needs a Commander-in-Chief elected by the people. So, who says "Own EU Army" also says, "EU President". Which means reducing the present heads of state in Europe to the rank of "state governors".

That will not go down easily given the innate pride of many politicians. So, it's up to the people to start a European resolution (for the positive) rather than their past knee-jerk referendums to say "No" to anything that displeases them.

That nonetheless is a lot to ask of Europeans - voting for a "furriner" as head of state. The last time Europe had one sole leader it happened not as a result from a popular vote, but the Roman Empire. (At least everybody spoke Latin.)

Frankly, I don't see it happening just yet ...

 

[Reformedfindlay]

SOLUTION

European 2nd ammendment.. Arm the population..

Huge game changer for any would-be invaders..

Expand military reserves and train em up, europe would be a much harder target..

SOLUTION

Take a step back and let them do what they wish. Your suggestions are irrelevant.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

It depends on the situation. In areas that we can see strong control of territory, and effective military methods, civilian actions are of minimal effect. Israel, for example, maintains both of the above, and the only methodologies still available to dissenters there is suicide bombing, and even that has been minimal in recent years.

In a more pragmatic sphere, arming vast numbers of civilians can, and clearly has in the US, led to high numbers of deaths by people shooting each other, either on purpose or by accident, even absent any sort of invader.

Majority of shooting in the US is suicide.

 

[late]

I visited Hungary when Soviet Russia had it's boot on their neck.

It's not hard controlling a civilian population if you're willing to keep killing large numbers until they stop.

This is a complicated situation, knee jerk solutions will result in disaster.

 

[Auvergnat]

Majority of shooting in the US is suicide.

True, but criminality in the USA is also significantly more violent. Armed robberies and homicides are pretty rare on this side of the ocean. I lived in a ghetto for ten years and only very rarely did I see a gun.

However hunting rifles are frequent in rural areas. Guns are not prohibited, only regulated.

 

[Chagos]

Majority of shooting in the US is suicide.

Yeah, a gun in the house solves any logistically problem even with that.

 

[Ganesh]

Israel is a good example: it actually proved very difficult for Israeli to to cohabit with Palestinians, they have had to segregate. Israel controls the borders of Palestinian territories, more than the territories themselves. This proves in my opinion that in an armed country the occupant cannot control the territory, that it has to shelter himself and lives under a specific mentality, and that weapons prevent the occupation to become pacific for decades at least.

Do you think Israeli would bear this cost if they felt they had a choice? If it was not their homeland, if they were not colonizing it, if this territory did not entail vital strategic considerations, and without the messianic cause?

I grant that Israel has gone to extraordinary lengths to defend itself, however, one must concede that they have been more or less successful. They absolutely rule their territory, and indeed have developed a modern and successful society while doing it. It is just a question of how far an occupying force is willing to go. Germany did not give up France during WW2 until a military invasion forced it, despite increasing resistance against them by civilians, supplied with military grade weapons from outside. The Soviets did not give up Hungary in 1956, despite a rather forceful civilian rebellion. Any occupier that wants to be brutal enough will stay in charge, despite a bunch of folks with hanguns and sporting rifles running about.

I do not deny this and so far I am still opposed to arming citizens for this very reason. But the rise of Islam in my country, France, may lead me to change my mind in the future if a civil war was coming, since we will not be able to count on our police as some will turn against us.

Arming the population may also become a solution in Eastern Europe against Russia, and in Greece against Turkey or a future Caliphate.

I'd be very cautious about handing out guns willy nilly. The Soviets killed about 100 during the suppression of Czechoslovakia in 1968, about 3,000 during the more brutal action in Hungary in 1956, but Americans rack up a causality score of about 33,000 per year while at peace, just due to loose gun laws.