Is the Creation of an EU Military a Good thing?

[miguel]

Recreate the Warsaw Pact. **** the EU. Then have the US join. #winningtillithurts

 

[BugI02]

Finally, A Gov't That 'Gets It:' "Shoot Terrorists Yourselves" Czech Gov't Tells Is Citizens How To Fight Islamic Jihadis - Fortuna's Corner

 

[KMaC]

Finally, A Gov't That 'Gets It:' "Shoot Terrorists Yourselves" Czech Gov't Tells Is Citizens How To Fight Islamic Jihadis - Fortuna's Corner

Letting armed citizens fight back against a terror attack seems like common sense but shipping all the refugees to uninhabited Greek islands seems a bit unrealistic.

 

[Sylvain]

I have to say NO. Europe hasn't given many reasons to trust them. Lots of difference in the way some of them think compared to my reasoning.

If they can't be trusted it's a bit too late since the two EU states with the largest militaries have nuclear weapons.

They are already working together on many levels when it comes to military co-operation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancaster_House_Treaties_(2010)

France and the UK put together represent 50% of the military capabilities of the EU and 70% of the military reasearch and development budget of the entire EU.

And a EU military is already a reality with the creation of the EUFOR and EU Battlegroups under EU control, also Eurocorps and others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Battlegroup

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocorps

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_operations_of_the_European_Union

The EU is already sending troups for peace keeping operations, mainly in Africa, and have been doing so for years.

I guess the EUFOR is not really well known but yeah the EU already has its own military.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Better the EU than the UN.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I see it as a means to stop more Brexits. More intertwined less likely to leave

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I see it as a means to stop more Brexits. More intertwined less likely to leave

Is a standing army the "desperation baby" of a failing empire?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Whether you feel NATO serves our best interest or not wasn't my point. The fact that it appears our Allies believe they can no longer count on us is. Once it appears that our interest is greatly different than theirs they'll start doing what they believe works best for them. At times because we may no longer have such a great alliance they may make even bigger decisions which may even be more at odds with our interest, it's only when you have a closer alliance do you stand a better chance of influencing others without some show of force Sure sometimes you can even influence your worst enemy but generally speaking this requires more work and generally this is through some show of force or the fact you have some kind of upper hand of some sort.

If by that you mean that they can no longer count on us to take responsibility for their defense while they sit with their thumbs up their asses and refuse to contribute the agreed amount of defense spending as allies in an alliance rather than spectators, then they SHOULD NOT be able to count on us as this is NOT our responsibility.

I see it as a means to stop more Brexits. More intertwined less likely to leave

Either it will stop more Brexits by intertwining or else by keeping the members in at gunpoint.

By the way, the poll is flawed. There should have been a choice, "Hell no!"

 

[Dddrees]

If by that you mean that they can no longer count on us to take responsibility for their defense while they sit with their thumbs up their asses and refuse to contribute the agreed amount of defense spending as allies in an alliance rather than spectators, then they SHOULD NOT be able to count on us as this is NOT our responsibility.



Either it will stop more Brexits by intertwining or else by keeping the members in at gunpoint.

By the way, the poll is flawed. There should have been a choice, "Hell no!"

Also meaning we have less influence in that area of the world.

 

[jamil]

If they can't be trusted it's a bit too late since the two EU states with the largest militaries have nuclear weapons.

They are already working together on many levels when it comes to military co-operation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancaster_House_Treaties_(2010)

France and the UK put together represent 50% of the military capabilities of the EU and 70% of the military reasearch and development budget of the entire EU.

And a EU military is already a reality with the creation of the EUFOR and EU Battlegroups under EU control, also Eurocorps and others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Battlegroup

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocorps

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_operations_of_the_European_Union

The EU is already sending troups for peace keeping operations, mainly in Africa, and have been doing so for years.


I guess the EUFOR is not really well known but yeah the EU already has its own military.

What will happen with the UK's contribution once brexit is complete?

 

[Cygnus]

I voted no, but may have changed to undecided after reading the thread.
I'd like to see how they'd pay for it and of course, how Germany's neighbors, as well as it's conditioned citizens, will react.

 

[jamil]

Also meaning we have less influence in that area of the world.

Should we continue a military welfare program just so we can maintain our influence? Europe has evolved an entitlement kind of attitude towards our military support, and I wouldn't mind seeing that attitude at least weakened. I like to see people want to take their proper responsibility.

 

[Leadeye]

I don't see it happening, history, culture, logistics, language, those are a few of the expensive items to be worked out before it would be a reality. Member states would have to give up a lot more sovereignty to Brussels than I think will ever happen.

The logistics/procurement problem is a political landmine. Who decides where it's bought and how much?

Always follow the money

 

[Dddrees]

Should we continue a military welfare program just so we can maintain our influence? Europe has evolved an entitlement kind of attitude towards our military support, and I wouldn't mind seeing that attitude at least weakened. I like to see people want to take their proper responsibility.

See things as you will, but in a world where there are many more countries than just us and many more agendas than ours it can greatly help us when we have partners who are more willing to work with us. Trump isn't the first to bring this up and there was an agreement for which they where to pay there share by 2020 or 2022?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Also meaning we have less influence in that area of the world.

See things as you will, but in a world where there are many more countries than just us and many more agendas than ours it can greatly help us when we have partners who are more willing to work with us. Trump isn't the first to bring this up and there was an agreement for which they where to pay there share by 2020 or 2022?

The problem is that we need partners, not parasites, which is exactly what they are. As for the agreement with Obama, this is no different than the last time a similar agreement was made, or the time before that, and all said and done, it never happens. I have no problem with Trump putting his foot down on this. It needs done.

 

[Dddrees]

The problem is that we need partners, not parasites, which is exactly what they are. As for the agreement with Obama, this is no different than the last time a similar agreement was made, or the time before that, and all said and done, it never happens. I have no problem with Trump putting his foot down on this. It needs done.

The problem it appears is that we're not going to have any partners the way Trump's doing it either. In fact it seems there's less of a chance other countries will work with us because of the way he's going about it.

 

[halfmileharry]

If they can't be trusted it's a bit too late since the two EU states with the largest militaries have nuclear weapons.

They are already working together on many levels when it comes to military co-operation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancaster_House_Treaties_(2010)

France and the UK put together represent 50% of the military capabilities of the EU and 70% of the military reasearch and development budget of the entire EU.

And a EU military is already a reality with the creation of the EUFOR and EU Battlegroups under EU control, also Eurocorps and others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Battlegroup

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocorps

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_operations_of_the_European_Union

The EU is already sending troups for peace keeping operations, mainly in Africa, and have been doing so for years.

I guess the EUFOR is not really well known but yeah the EU already has its own military.

Coalitions when needed are a product of diplomacy.
I understand Europe's fears of the Ruskys.
One of my fears is some members of the union having access to sensitive information they could easily pass on.
Europe has been diluted down enough that you can't tell the players without a score card.
Trust? I'll trust an individual but not a system that doesn't even work to protect it's own people.

 

[Fargo]

The problem it appears is that we're not going to have any partners the way Trump's doing it either. In fact it seems there's less of a chance other countries will work with us because of the way he's going about it.

I think what many other countries have defined "working with us" to be is a good part of why Trump was elected on the platform he ran on.

The United States sits in a very unique position globally. We have vastly more land and natural resources than most other nations and we have no hostile neighbors able to even touch us militarily. Outside of nukes, we have the ability to project military force in a global fashion that no one else can even come close to. After the Cold War, there is vacuum for our military capabilities which has resulted in strange uses and "partnerships".

 

[KellyinAvon]

If they can't be trusted it's a bit too late since the two EU states with the largest militaries have nuclear weapons.

They are already working together on many levels when it comes to military co-operation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancaster_House_Treaties_(2010)

France and the UK put together represent 50% of the military capabilities of the EU and 70% of the military reasearch and development budget of the entire EU.

And a EU military is already a reality with the creation of the EUFOR and EU Battlegroups under EU control, also Eurocorps and others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Battlegroup

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocorps

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_operations_of_the_European_Union

The EU is already sending troups for peace keeping operations, mainly in Africa, and have been doing so for years.

I guess the EUFOR is not really well known but yeah the EU already has its own military.

NATO AWACS has the NATO emblem, but administratively reports to the US Air Force. We had multiple NATO entities in our compound in Qatar in 2005 since that's where everything (fixed-wing) flying gets de-conflicted and coordinated (in theory anyway.) We had USAF attached to NATO entities, but administratively they reported to somebody in an AF blue uniform. Country flags on the vehicles means they haven't given up sovereignty to EU, rather they are deployed as a coalition.

Question: what happens when the 2 entities have different objectives, with people from the same countries on each side? Well, it ain't good.

 

[NKBJ]

Foundations and the national leaders dancing to their tunes have been publishing papers and bemoaning the thought of Germany going nuclear. Never mind what Germany manufactures for the French submarine fleet and how many decades the US provided nukes for our NATO allies, you're supposed get all sweaty palmed that Angie baby might get the bomb. And, oh yeah, that it will of course be all Trump's fault.

Some stuff from last year about Germany...

https://www.boell.de/en/2016/08/24/germany-defense-nuclear-weapons

The Sudden German Nuke Flirtation - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace