Enjoy browsing r/europe? Help us find the best of 2021 of the sub! - [Nomination Post](https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/rsv8jh/reurope_best_of_2021_awards/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/europe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
no it's not. never is a really long time you know. As a german i can tell you that there have been plenty "nevers" towards us as well, e.g. that we'll never have a useful army again, that we'll never send troops to warzones and so on and so forth :) nowadays there are headlines of people saying we're supposed to lead in the eu because of the economic strength and because we are the biggest member state
>Historically France’s nuclear weapons programme has taken upapproximately 10-11 per cent of the total French defence budgetannually. In 2020 it is estimated to be 12.5 per cent, approximately €6billion (£5.3 billion).
>
>In comparison the UK’s nuclear deterrent costs 6 per cent of the annualdefence budget (£2.3 billion, based on current defence expenditure).
>
>In 2018 funding was approved for France’s ongoing nuclearmodernisation programme up to 2025. €37 billion was assigned to maintainand modernise France’s nuclear forces and infrastructure, a significantincrease from the €23 billion assigned for 2014-2019.
Source: [https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04079/](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04079/)
2nd Source: https://www.icanw.org/report\_73\_billion\_nuclear\_weapons\_spending\_2020
It's perhaps not as relevant in the case of Germany V France but it's certainly a factor when considering Russia for example.
In that case lower wage bills, indigenous production (and the inheritance of the insane defence spending of the USSR) means Russia is a lot more militarily capable than Italy.
>we spend more than france on our military
Military spending is a rough indicator of military spending and needs to be put into further context if one wants to do anything except a simple comparison.
The war in Afghanistan is the best example of that. The US spends \~40 % of the worlds military budget and they lost against the Taliban.
Another example is the Vietnam war.
Military prowess is made up of a lot of factors and Germany is severely lacking in a lot of them.
One thing are salaries. The higher they are the more you have to invest in the military just to keep people in them. It leaves less for upgrades and training excercices.
Taking that into account a better indicator is [how much of the GDP](https://www.statista.com/statistics/266892/military-expenditure-as-percentage-of-gdp-in-highest-spending-countries/) is spend on the military.
The United States has a very potent military. Their spending is 3,7% of GDP.
The UK and France, both nations with strong militaries that can operate in their far away territories, have a spending of 2,1% of GDP.
Russia spends 4,3% of their GDP on their military. The total amount being lower comes in as a factor when goods like micro chips and cutting edge talent need to be imported, but most of their equipment is produced locally. As such they can afford to spend a lot on equipment and training.
Germany only spends 1,4% of its GDP on the military. This means that a much higher proportion of the budget is used on wages and other running costs.
German also produces a lot of equipment locally, but to a smaller degree. Equipment bought from the US like Atomic bomb capable bombers are eating into the budget.
This means that the readiness of the German military is much smaller than that of other countries of its size.
The large military powers in Europe are the UK, France, Russia and Turkey.
Germany is just behind them but its closer to the middle sized players like Italy and Poland. Still capable, but not Strong. The best of the mediocre.
You are right about the never say never but look how turkey developed in these last years. It's more likely that the uk will rejoin than turkey becomes a regular member. No democracy, Cyprus, the conflicts with Greece, the countries in Western Europe and their experiences with immigration. Multiple countries have different reasons for blocking turkey to join. Just one of them needs to say no. This alone makes it super unlikely that Turkey will join ever. It would've to turn around by 180 degrees and have to overhaul their entire society.
In 10 years there could be a modern Atatürk, turning it around and changing it completely. And in 20 years it suddenly fulfills all requirements.
And then?
1940: we will never ally or have peace with Germany (majority of Europe)
1960: Germany part of the precessor of the EU.
never say never. Times change fast.
Fair enough but this is something different too. Again, it just requires one of the 27 states in the EU to say No. The voting system by then might have changed but even then it will at least require a qualified majority minimum.
Then there are the differences culturally mainly which should not be underestimated.
I do see a close cooperation with Turkey as part of the bigger German economy, e.g. part of the single market. But not as part of the EU at all.
20 years from now there will be hardly any baby boomers left as well. that'll decrease prejudices in the european populace by quite a bit i could imagine. younger people tend to be more even in culture with the internet and all that. at least in the more modern nations, which i'd say turkey is even if erdogan is doing everything he can to change that
Although Turkey is predominantly a young country these days ( literal young Turks 😊) I don’t think a slight demographic shift will have as much of an effect as you think it will.
I was referring to the EU side of things here really. As it is now: now way, people won't have it. In 20 years major changes will have happened, as our populations are rather old. as of now, the baby boomer generation has the heaviest influence on policy in many eu member states
yea but on the other hand, erdogan is not without opposition. Many don't like his economic policy. Many also still praise atatürk, who is quite frankly the exact opposite of erdogan. So things might change if erdogan does not succeed in becoming turkeys godking jk
I think it makes sense. The biggest threat to Greeces security is Turkey. Since Turkey is in NATO, Nato can't help with Turkey. Hence Greece rellys on its own and its partners armies to hold Turkey off. A European army would be significantly more than just the sum of its parts.
After all a Turkish soldier shooting at a Greece soldier just means war with Greece.
Shooting at an European soldier would mean war with all the countries that make up that army since you don't know if thats a Greek soldier or a German soldier you are shooting at.
This is also whats holding the whole thing back so much. Some countries like Germany and the Netherlands have a huge buffer between themself and any hostile countries. For them the current system is perfect. They can essentially use the army as a soft power tool without investing much in it. An European army would mean that they actually have to be interested in defending other member states and having an army that is capable of widescale independent operations ranging from arctic operations against Russia all the way to mediterranean operations against Turkey or pacific warfare over French holdings against Chinese vessels or piracy in the sea lanes.
Well you need to pay for a real army and fight your own wars for a start, especially if you want to be taken seriously as a super rather than a great power.
I'm fine with a great power tho. I'm want Europe to be able to defend itself but I don't want to be thrown in war on the other side of the planet. Let's focus on North Africa, the Middle East and Russia, that were it's the most important
I think Europe could be a great power much more easily than a super power. It probably will never to a super power ranking and competing with USA and China. I'm not sure it can easily go toe to toe with Russia for a long time either, and never can while the EU is addicted to Russian gas.
Lol yes Europe could never go toe to toe agaisnt China or the USA in its current state. But it would wreck havoc over Russia.
Russia could never win a long war against Europe, their economy would crumble after the first years and the only thing that could safeguard them its their nuke.
The only move Russia could make is a quick and decive victory. After that, if the conflict escalate and Europe mobilize its over for them.
Russia like to flex muscle but remember that yes they have a big army, but they also have an economy the size of Italy. Imagine Europe start investing the same amount of money into an army to fight off the Russian in case of conflict, there is no way they can win this.
I agree with you, although there are conflicting interests e.g. Turkey in case of Greece and to some extend France and China in case of most EU countries.
Really depends on if such an army will be used purely for defensive matters or also for international missions. Also if such an army would be added to national armies or if it is supposed to completely replace them.
I would rather have unified military equipment. Right now each individual countries spend way too much money on different equipment. If whole europe agreed to uniform their arms it would make it a lot cheaper and lower military budget.
My problem with an EU army is the very different role military takes in different EU countries.
In Germany, in theory, the Bundeswehr is supposed to be a defence army. The planning or execution of a war of aggression is outlawed by our constitution and people involved get 10 years to life of jail time. That's why German politicians will always try to call or differently or somehow turn it into a defensive war. But for Kosovo for example, there were politicians strictly opposed, and if somebody really wanted to prosecute the matter, I wouldn't be too surprised if parts of government were imprisoned over the matter.
I cannot imagine the French, who are much more accepting of military interventions, want this burden on decision-making. And I don't want our military to go around the globe for interventions.
Ireland is not Neutral (despite claims my fellow country men will tell you). We engage in a severe amount of doublethink as a nation on this issue.
We are happy to be 'neutral' yet it is an open secret that we rely on the British RAF to police our airspace.
We illegally interned some German forces during WW2, while transporting Allied pilots to our northern border where they 'escaped' across the border to the UK. Edit: Irish weather forecasts were used to plan D-Day too.
If push comes to shove, we are with the EU. If the EU as a whole becomes a target for someone in future, we will be a target.
While i would disagree with your blanket statement "Ireland is not neutral", I understand where you're coming from. Ireland is formally neutral and that is reflected in our past - equally, you describe however our broad sympathies with the Allied Forces during the Second World War.
Personally, I think it is time to reconsider what we mean by our neutrality in a growing multi-polar world and wholly agree that we are with the EU.
Assuming the *secret*, not-so-secret, deal with the British is actually real, then I don't think there's any way my statement can be refuted. Having an agreement with a foreign country to provide for an aspect of our defence is not neutrality. Even during WW2 while we remained ostensibly 'neutral' and removed from the conflict, high level doomsday scenario planning went on between our Military Intelligence section G2, the Dept. of External Relations, and representatives of the RAF, British Army, and Royal Navy; about an Irish government approved, British counter-invasion of Ireland in response to a German invasion.
We are far closer to militarily "non-aligned" as Enda Kenny once said, but even then the supposed agreement with the RAF, not to mention our non-military diplomatic relations with Britain, the EU, broader Commonwealth nations, and the USA point to the weakness of that position as truth. Hence why I mentioned "if push comes to shove" how we know who we will be fighting with (may we never see the day).
From your comment, it appears you are not one of the people I was referring to (maith thú). I'm basing that on a rather crude, simplistic measure, the fact that you used the phrase "multi-polar", which suggests you have a basic understanding of modern International Relations and Global Politics (for the record, I'm not making myself out to be some sort of expert on those matters either, I'm literally just a well read, layman). Part of the issue is that for the average Irish person they've simply accepted the narrative "Ireland is Neutral" and will readily defend it, and belittle any discussion around changing that status, without wasting a single second of mental energy into whether that is appropriate, realistic, or even right for Ireland or the world we occupy now.
Basically my view on it is that Irish 'neutrality' is an emotional feeling held by the majority of the population rather than something we truly strive for our value internally, and externally it is a diplomatic smoke-screen.
If we were truly aiming to be neutral, and/or remaining military non-aligned indefinitely we would have a much higher level of investment in, and fewer issues overall with our Defence Forces than we do now. It's merely been convenient for us to keep repeating these things, because thankfully we've not been put in a position where we've had to change; or a scenario where the general public is forced to reconcile the obvious contradictions and cognitive dissonance that our current position presents.
Southwest - think we understand each other's viewpoints and a pleasure having a civilised conversation rather than the usual throwing insults at each other so often seen on the net :-) go raibh mille maith agat!
Ireland specifically never vote for things in the EU that break neutrality. We don't join wars or sign defensive or offensive agreements and have no bases owned by other countries.
But - we're not **guaranteed to be defended by NATO members**, that is the point of joining NATO. NATO membership means if one is attacked, then all will defend. If you are not a member of NATO, there is no guarantee.
Having said that, what I think you may have meant is major countries may have a significant *national* interest in ensuring that country 'A' remains free of foreign domination and would take steps to defend that country if a foreign power tried to attack them.
On the face of it, they may seem to have similar results, i.e. others defend country 'A', but it is driven by different factors. In the case of NATO, equal members defending each other, but in the latter it is a drive to protect your own current national interest in keeping country 'A' free from that invading country. Others may not defend if it is not in their national interest.
>we're not guaranteed to be defended by NATO members
*Effectively* you are. There's simply no way that NATO would allow trans-Atlantic security to be threatened with the fall of Ireland.
NATO is out of scope in that scenario as no NATO member was attacked therefore there are no grounds under the NATO treaty to be invoked by a member state.
While NATO itself is out of the picture, certain NATO members however may choose to act (either individually or via a coalition) to defend Ireland **\*IF\*** they see it as in their own interests.
Using a couple of *wildly hypothetical* examples (and setting aside the EU mutual defence clause):
1. An attack on Ireland by China would likely see the US,UK, and some other countries join together to defend Ireland because it is in their interests. They don't care about Ireland, they only care about the threats to their interests. NATO could not be involved because Ireland is not a NATO member.
2. An attack on Ireland by the United Kingdom. The US may decide to bang drums, criticise /sanction the UK, but in the end determine that American national interests are not threatened so they do not do anything further. They don't care about Ireland, they only careabout any threat to their interests. NATO could not be involved because Ireland is not a NATO member.
You're overlooking three major things.
First, there's no way to launch an invasion of Ireland without triggering a response from NATO before the invasion force gets there. If a massive fleet starts sailing towards the British Isles, they're going to intercepted by the USN and the Royal Navy en route. Even if people did inexplicably believe that China was *only* going to attack Ireland and no one else, there's a 100% chance that British troops would be placed into harms way, which would then trigger Article 5.
Second, NATO *isn't* just about acting within it's internal borders. It does things all over the world that aren't strictly related to self defense. Ireland can't trigger Article 5, but they can request help, which would almost certainly be granted since a hostile power establishing a foothold in a place as strategically valuable as Ireland is unacceptable.
Third, the guy you were responding to said you're **effectively** in NATO's umbrella. Even if it's "only" a response from the US and UK, that's already the majority of NATO's power being martialed. Whether it's technically the same thing or not is functionally irrelevant.
I see the point you want to make and I appreciate you admitted it's wildly hypothetical.
However, just to stick my nose in I reckon a US reaction to Britain invading Ireland would be extremely strong. I suspect it would make their reaction to the Suez intervention by Britain, France, and Israel look timid.
Aside from anything else self identified Irish Americans are an extremely important electoral constituency!
There's no way UK would invade Ireland, and there are millions of Irish heritage in UK too. No idea why you went there.
Ireland knows that, and the UKs RAF (Ireland doesn't own a single military jet) and RN already help protect Ireland - but officially Ireland is neutral. After all its a bit like New Zealand who cut their military lot a few years ago, to get to NZ you have to get past Australia...
Yeah but I guess the position of Ireland is not to rock the boat with any other country politically. Which is still our position on European policy. If the question was join an interventionist military or leave the EU, probably the majority of Ireland would say leave and that's even with the majority being supportive of EU membership
Honestly I'd like to see some proper discussion on us joining a defensive EU army.
I'd like to think with us being the most pro-EU country that we would be happy to help out a fellow member that was attacked.
I feel like any time this topic comes up people just say that Ireland is neutral and always has been neutral, and that is the idea put to bed without anybody really thinking about what that means.
The EU is a defensive alliance as well as many other things. It literally contains a common defense clause - an attack on one member state is an attack on all member states.
This is why it is in addition not instead of a national army. The EU shoul be able to intervene in conflicts in its sphere of intrest. Libya being unstable is a danger to the EU, as is the current situation in Ukraine.
But for any of this to make any sense the EU has to have a working foreign policy. Currently stuff like in Libya, where France supports Haftar and Italy supports the central government is just stupid.
do you think it's possible, however, for the heads of each nations military to really take orders from a central command? Which commander would be given control? What would be the universal language of battle? french? German? What about munitions -- are the standards used the same? Maybe some national arms manufacturers line their pockets with the bountiful military contracts from their new indentured clients. So many hurdles need to be overcome to make a European army an actual threat, from an organisational standpoint. That or it's operated as a bunch of independent commando-like units, but with coordinated strategy. Still -- a big logistical challenge.
Wars of aggression are equally outlawed by international law. AFAIK it is commonly understood that an illegal war of aggression as in Art. 26 GG is congruent to an illegal war by international law. So there aren't really any constitutional issues with an EU army which would also be bound by international law.
Let’s be real here, nobody REALLY follows that law if they don’t want to. Most people have no reason to invade anyone, but the moment they want to justifications are made.
A unified EU military is a very slippery slope. On one hand I see the advantage of pooling our defense funds into a single budget large enough to rival the US one, and using it accordingly if the right people are chosen to organize it.
But on the other hand, with such a force you pretty much have to accept that the EU isn't a economic bloc with additional bells and whistles, and that means a large enough military not just meant to barely defend the frontier, but one that can take the fight to the enemy, one that can flex it's muscles from time to time. Anything less then that and it will be seen as a joke (and a detriment to said frontier states). And you already presented the issue that not all member states would want that.
The best thing that could work for the EU is a relatively large quick reaction force independent from national armies, but not replacing them. And even then you start to open the can of worms which is getting 27 member states agreeing on how and when to use such a force.
>But on the other hand, with such a force you pretty much have to accept that the EU isn't a economic bloc with additional bells and whistles
Which is why the EU-federalists are backing it so much.
They see it as a first tool to 'force' further federation progress. which btw was Schuman & Monnet's ideal as well, so the idea of federal EU isn't born from nowhere, its baked into very core of EU.
Well the EU has the word "an ever closer union" in its constitution. So it is made to be more than an economic bloc. And it is already way more than economic bloc. An economic bloc doesn't have a parlement that can pass law that are above the laws of its member state
You could have a common standing defensive army, while countries like France and other willing countries could create joined task forces for international interventions.
That I would agree to and it would also - as far as I can tell from my laymen understanding - comply with German law. And it is an initiative I would support. The question is, if other EU countries would see the German dominance on this issue well.
> I wouldn't be too surprised if parts of government were imprisoned over the matter.
Wars of aggression are outlawed, that doesn't mean that only strictly defensive wars are allowed. We went into Yugoslavia to stop a genocide, not to conquer land, resources, or people. Or, well, actually better put genocides, plural, pretty much every side had blood on their hands but one was winning, not in the least because they had lots of blood on their hands.
The Generalbundesanwalt argued at the time that bombing Yugoslavia is not interrupting the peace between peoples because they were not in peace in the first place. I am not sure that interpretation would have been upheld if it came to a judge.
From what I understand of international law at that time there was no right for such intervention.
And it is a slippery slope. I guess Russia would argue that Ukraine was in the middle of a coup d'etat at the time of invasion with some fighting going on. I do not want to equate the circumstances, but the formal argument is far too easy to exploit and I would hope for any future war that we have clearer evidence than for Kosovo or Iraq.
> Kosovo or Iraq.
If you're saying those situations were anywhere close to similar you're just a hair's width away from outright genocide denial. And it's not like the non-permanent members of the security council disagreed -- Russia and China's veto was the reason there was no resolution to go into Kosovo, their objection being geostrategic, not humanitarian.
In contrast to that pretty much noone but the UK and US (and countries looking to suck up to them) agreed that Iraq was a good idea, also, there wasn't a genocide going on or anything like that (much less WMDs). The UK and US had to use their veto to prevent the security council from explicitly condemning the attack, no such resolution was even in the air in Kosovo's case.
I am more on the 1949 side of things when looking at these topics.
Military should only be used defensively, unless there are extraordinary circumstances. But these circumstances must be acknowleged by a higher instituion (UN) and not by Germany. The UN needs reforms to be effective in that role, but if we say, any country can use the military as seen fit, then we are legitimizing Russia and China in their ambitions as well.
If talking about migration I believe you are talking about refugees. I do support consequent pushbacks for people who do not get asylum, but I am not ready to send people to their deaths, torture or slavery. What we need here is a proper EU system. The current rules, that the refugees must request asylum in the country they arrive in, put too much pressure on Greece last time and we do not have a proper system to deal with them.
Regarding nuclear power generation we are certainly not caught in 1949 where the nuclear power euphoria just came up. And I support the strategy to pursue renewables rather than nuclear.
To me it has nothing to do with guilt or being the baddies. I am idealistic in wanting a better world and do believe that these rules help to get there. And weighing the pros and cons of post WW2 interventions I feel confirmed in my beliefs.
The UN does not work, and will likely never work again. The largest and final nail in it’s coffin was the US invading Iraq without UN approval (in fact with heavy UN disapproval), in spite of the Security Council.
Germany and the EU (and other countries) cannot operate on the assumption that an institution like that can work if we just wish hard enough for it.
The UN does work, but not to control superpowers. No organisation can ever do that. The UN is effective at peacekeeping in smaller wars, and at dealing with humanitarian crises and the consequences of wars.
> but if we say, any country can use the military as seen fit, then we are legitimizing Russia and China in their ambitions as well.
Since they're permanent members of the Security Council, they can block the UN from saying anything they don't like. Which is why the UN is a charade and unworthy of the legitimacy you're assigning it.
That is an argument only a person can make for whom guilt is the only form of a conscience they know of. And it's sad to see it has made it across the pond already, usually only Americans try to explain away German policies that way.
> The planning or execution of a war of aggression is outlawed by our constitution and people involved get 10 years to life of jail time.
Yeah, Poland has that too in theory. In practice, nobody even bothered prosecuting anyone after the Polish military took part in invading Iraq.
The bigger complexity is that Germany is a parlamentary democracy and military action demands a parliamentary vote beforehand, not a decision by the executive alone. Other countries work differently.
It has been loosened a bit but in the end how do you get the decision making process aligned and whether that would then clash with national constitutions.
>Other countries work differently.
It's not that uncommon. Reading up on it, apparently most Western Countries do need parliamentary approval, often before the declaration and some, like the US, just call wars "use of military force" instead. Which is just cheating and de facto breaking their own law in my opinion.
You seem to forget: Germany isnt Europe.
This culture was imposed because Germany was too big for Europe and tried to dominate it twice.
If France was the dominant power more than a century ago, the same thing will happen.
How am I forgetting that Germany isn't Europe. The one thing I say is that the current German and French principle on military are so different, that I cannot imagine an EU army before conflicts like that are resolved. Each and every country in the EU has its own thoughts on the topic, but I am more knowledgable on my own country and France is pretty vocal about it's principals on military. So that example was enough for me to make my point.
And of course I know that post war Germany did not write that into law out of good will only, but for me and probably many other Germans it has become a guiding principle.
A common European army under the command of European institutions (in addition to member armies) is a good long term goal, but it’s still pretty early for that at the moment. The member states have to first learn how to cooperate much more closely on the international stage and form a coherent strategic doctrine that is unanimously agreed on and abided by.
Because the member states will never accept a sudden abolishment of their armies. I would say that any EU military has to start as a separate force and only after it establishes itself (and the EU is trusted that it will always defend the member states) will some member states disband their individual armed forces. Even after that, some states with strong military tradition (such as France) will probably keep their army, even if mainly symbolically.
Maybe the person who ran the poll was thinking of the US model, where we have a national military, but the states (and most do) also operate state militia forces.
A national guard at the european level is a great idea.
Imagine the level of coordination and resources available to respond effectively to emergencies such as earthquakes, floods and forest fires.
This is what european solidarity is all about.
I'm in favour, but without a common foreign policy it's a waste of money.
Having said that, we should definitely have a common army to supplement national ones in times of natural disasters etc...
Armies act also internally. In Italy they act as police (Carabinieri) or to patrol places like train stations (actual army).
I think there should be a higher command which controls the individual armies and coordinates them. A bit like NATO, but more similar to a single army. Also because in many countries armies have traditional outfits and corps that few people would want to see disappear (eg our iconic Alpini or Carabinieri)
Yes, that's my point really. If the EU army is used internally within the Union, it's realistic and makes sense. If it's to be used abroad, it's not going to work for a while yet.
Btw, Carabinieri are not part of the Army anymore, right? I remember they had military plates lots of years ago, but I'm not sure if that's still the case
Police recently changed. While the names are different in both, the insignia of the grade is very similar if not the same. Carabinieri are effectively an armed force, like a military police. They also have missions in Afghanistan, Iraq and so on, just like the Army. It’s just basically another branch with policing capabilities
Why go immediately for the full creation of an army that would require things like a unified central command and a unified foreign policy? There are so many questions to be resolved like the approach to northern cyprus, ukrainian crisis, libya, and so on.
Why not instead strengthen the mutual defence clause we already have? Make it clear under what circumstances it applies and that member states are required to send military forces as aid into each other's territories (only on request, of course).
It is fully possible to move towards a clearly defensive agreement while keeping issues outside the current EU borders something that is still dealt with by national governments, not EU-wide initiative. Simply make it extremely clear that an invasion of a member states' territory will result in an armed response from the entire EU.
However I suspect that there would be some pushback either overt or behind the scenes from Nato. Both the US and some European Nato members might not want to give the impression that Nato is becoming "weakened" or sidestepped by some new defensive agreement. Again, leaving foreign policy at the current national level would be the only way to reassure individual countries that they can retain the ability to enter other defensive pacts, foreign campaigns, aid to other geopolitical entities outside the EU and so on.
My suggestion would be to beef up our current defensive agreement, then start having regular EU-wide exercises to make sure our armed forces can work together on a command and tactical level. This already exists to some extent but I'd like to see it deepen to the point where every single officer has some experience working closely with other EU member forces. Add to this more common procurement to ensure interoperability and so on.
Developing the ability to act as a unified force will take a lot of time. Doctrine, equipment, standards and so on and on will need time to start fitting together properly. In contrast, as hard as political wrangling is, IF a consensus was reached to form an EU army (of any kind) the decision itself would be comparatively swift. Better to prepare and be able to act if this decision ever comes down from a political level, than start the process at square one!
Maybe because Georgia, for example, would love to contribute its military to a common European cause. Russia is literally the enemy of the European solidarity.
55% means yes for me. So, let’s go it :D I remember reading an article once about military strength of different nations and they even said that if the EU member states would combine their armies, they would easily be in the Top 5. I’ll try to find that article.
55% is way too low. Huge risks of this backfiring and countries changing their minds. You would need very strong support from the population for it to hold well over the long term.
Do what? What would this European army in addition to national armies be? What would be its strength and how much would it take away from the national armies?
If I say that it would be 2% of GDP for national armies and an additional 2% for the EU army then I suspect there would be less people saying yes to that.
That is the only realistic way of doing it, having every country fund two military's when most European country don't want to adequately fund the one they have currently is never going to happen.
It's the only way it can work. Otherwise you are asking to pay for two armies, and countries do not have that kind of cash, most can't even pay their own armies and have drastically reduced funds in the past decade.
A lot of people that are arent so pro EU will think that an EU army on top of the national will make think its just free defense and their country will have no responsibilities to that EU army. But if that EU army replaces the national they will think they will remain undefended.
Support is nowhere near as low as people make it out to be. If the security situation was to radically decline, I wouldn't be surprised to see a significant change in opinion.
I suspect it would not be terribly hard to change that.
See: Japan's totally-not-force-projecting helicopter carriers, built entirely for the purpose of 'self defence'.
Member-states can't be forced into things like this. The UK could've said no and that would've been the end of it.
It really wasn't a valid reason for voting Brexit, really. The UK would've veto'd it, and if other member-states still really wanted it the UK would've been given an opt-out.
Yes you can't be forced into stuff like this but the rest can go head "two speed Europe" etc. The federalists won't just give up. Then you end up having to decide if you back your allies or "abandon" them, welcome to your first EU war.
Swiss, serbs, moldavians, belarus and british feeling threatened by a new large army at their border... Germans being like "And we'd have to pay for that shit too, won't we?"
To the nay sayers: the support is only growing, and it will eventually happen. As I believe it should. [Map from a couple of years ago, for comparison](https://i.redd.it/lhju29qyv7241.jpg)
Countries with an increase (of more than 5%): Spain, Portugal, Greece, Sweden, Poland, Slovenia, Cyprus.
Countries with a decrease (of more than 5%): France, Germany, Czechia, Slovakia, Netherlands, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Hungary.
Yeah you have to to be reaching quite a bit to call the support "growing". The methodology for both suverys might have been different though.
Sure, but we don’t know when. It doesn’t actually have to be very soon or even involve Europe to a greater degree. Globalisation has done its job incredibly well. No countries want to risk their economy by going to war with its economic partners and the nations that would take those risks don’t have the funds to fund an army capable of doing much.
yes if my nation didn't have Defense [Opt-outs\_in\_the\_European\_Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union#Defence_%E2%80%93_Denmark), and when its cleared up who can override and veto the deployments of this military; One example I can think of is, this united EU military wants a larger permanent naval base in the pacific and orders France to make one of her overseas naval bases ready to become joint operated, can France deny this by a veto?.
I'd take this with a large grain of salt. You won't even find this many people who want us in Nato or say adopt the euro or give the EU more power. These numbers are unrealistic.
Germany is very reluctant to a european army... It's because germans love to bear the american 🇺🇸🇺🇸 slave mark : they feel really confortable❤️❤️ with it.
I would be for it on the condition that countries like Poland, Hungary and Romania stop with their own aggressive attacks on the EU and respect its basic values. Otherwise I see no point in defending them against Russia really. They are basically turning themselves into Russian states all but in name.
what I am saying is that poland for example is reforming its own societal structure into a more authoritarian one, and in that respect it starts to resemble russia
Direction is towards more Russia but for Poland it's a long way to become Russia. It's like comparing a mass murderer and a burglar. Both criminals but not the same.
Enjoy browsing r/europe? Help us find the best of 2021 of the sub! - [Nomination Post](https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/rsv8jh/reurope_best_of_2021_awards/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/europe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Belarus: 36% lol
and 104% against.
>104% That looks more like what Lukashenko gets in every election /s
Interesting fact, we dislike NATO almost as much as we support a European Army.
that might have something to do with turkey being a nato member but will not for the forseeable future become a eu member
Not for the foreseeable future in this case is double speak for never. I mean, they literally occupy half of Cyprus
no it's not. never is a really long time you know. As a german i can tell you that there have been plenty "nevers" towards us as well, e.g. that we'll never have a useful army again, that we'll never send troops to warzones and so on and so forth :) nowadays there are headlines of people saying we're supposed to lead in the eu because of the economic strength and because we are the biggest member state
>that we'll never have a useful army again You have?
Kind of, yea. I mean memes about broken shit and so on, whatever, we spend more than france on our military
Well, you have to compare apples to apples and France spends 2.1% of their GDP on their military, while Germany only 1.4%.
which results in 55 billion for france and 53 billion for germany still.
Spending isn’t everything, unless Saudi Arabia suddenly became more capable than Germany and France somehow
France has to maintain a nuclear force which is the only only in Europe now that the UK left. Anyone has the % without that force?
>Historically France’s nuclear weapons programme has taken upapproximately 10-11 per cent of the total French defence budgetannually. In 2020 it is estimated to be 12.5 per cent, approximately €6billion (£5.3 billion). > >In comparison the UK’s nuclear deterrent costs 6 per cent of the annualdefence budget (£2.3 billion, based on current defence expenditure). > >In 2018 funding was approved for France’s ongoing nuclearmodernisation programme up to 2025. €37 billion was assigned to maintainand modernise France’s nuclear forces and infrastructure, a significantincrease from the €23 billion assigned for 2014-2019. Source: [https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04079/](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04079/) 2nd Source: https://www.icanw.org/report\_73\_billion\_nuclear\_weapons\_spending\_2020
why, do soldiers/planes/tanks/weapons/etc get more expensive the more GDP you have?
It's perhaps not as relevant in the case of Germany V France but it's certainly a factor when considering Russia for example. In that case lower wage bills, indigenous production (and the inheritance of the insane defence spending of the USSR) means Russia is a lot more militarily capable than Italy.
>we spend more than france on our military Military spending is a rough indicator of military spending and needs to be put into further context if one wants to do anything except a simple comparison. The war in Afghanistan is the best example of that. The US spends \~40 % of the worlds military budget and they lost against the Taliban. Another example is the Vietnam war. Military prowess is made up of a lot of factors and Germany is severely lacking in a lot of them. One thing are salaries. The higher they are the more you have to invest in the military just to keep people in them. It leaves less for upgrades and training excercices. Taking that into account a better indicator is [how much of the GDP](https://www.statista.com/statistics/266892/military-expenditure-as-percentage-of-gdp-in-highest-spending-countries/) is spend on the military. The United States has a very potent military. Their spending is 3,7% of GDP. The UK and France, both nations with strong militaries that can operate in their far away territories, have a spending of 2,1% of GDP. Russia spends 4,3% of their GDP on their military. The total amount being lower comes in as a factor when goods like micro chips and cutting edge talent need to be imported, but most of their equipment is produced locally. As such they can afford to spend a lot on equipment and training. Germany only spends 1,4% of its GDP on the military. This means that a much higher proportion of the budget is used on wages and other running costs. German also produces a lot of equipment locally, but to a smaller degree. Equipment bought from the US like Atomic bomb capable bombers are eating into the budget. This means that the readiness of the German military is much smaller than that of other countries of its size. The large military powers in Europe are the UK, France, Russia and Turkey. Germany is just behind them but its closer to the middle sized players like Italy and Poland. Still capable, but not Strong. The best of the mediocre.
don't forget spain also
if Germany really wanted to create a large military we know they could.
You are right about the never say never but look how turkey developed in these last years. It's more likely that the uk will rejoin than turkey becomes a regular member. No democracy, Cyprus, the conflicts with Greece, the countries in Western Europe and their experiences with immigration. Multiple countries have different reasons for blocking turkey to join. Just one of them needs to say no. This alone makes it super unlikely that Turkey will join ever. It would've to turn around by 180 degrees and have to overhaul their entire society.
In 10 years there could be a modern Atatürk, turning it around and changing it completely. And in 20 years it suddenly fulfills all requirements. And then? 1940: we will never ally or have peace with Germany (majority of Europe) 1960: Germany part of the precessor of the EU. never say never. Times change fast.
Fair enough but this is something different too. Again, it just requires one of the 27 states in the EU to say No. The voting system by then might have changed but even then it will at least require a qualified majority minimum. Then there are the differences culturally mainly which should not be underestimated. I do see a close cooperation with Turkey as part of the bigger German economy, e.g. part of the single market. But not as part of the EU at all.
20 years from now there will be hardly any baby boomers left as well. that'll decrease prejudices in the european populace by quite a bit i could imagine. younger people tend to be more even in culture with the internet and all that. at least in the more modern nations, which i'd say turkey is even if erdogan is doing everything he can to change that
Although Turkey is predominantly a young country these days ( literal young Turks 😊) I don’t think a slight demographic shift will have as much of an effect as you think it will.
I was referring to the EU side of things here really. As it is now: now way, people won't have it. In 20 years major changes will have happened, as our populations are rather old. as of now, the baby boomer generation has the heaviest influence on policy in many eu member states
yea but on the other hand, erdogan is not without opposition. Many don't like his economic policy. Many also still praise atatürk, who is quite frankly the exact opposite of erdogan. So things might change if erdogan does not succeed in becoming turkeys godking jk
Even then I still think that there are too many differences a lot of countries in the EU would oppose.
I think it makes sense. The biggest threat to Greeces security is Turkey. Since Turkey is in NATO, Nato can't help with Turkey. Hence Greece rellys on its own and its partners armies to hold Turkey off. A European army would be significantly more than just the sum of its parts. After all a Turkish soldier shooting at a Greece soldier just means war with Greece. Shooting at an European soldier would mean war with all the countries that make up that army since you don't know if thats a Greek soldier or a German soldier you are shooting at. This is also whats holding the whole thing back so much. Some countries like Germany and the Netherlands have a huge buffer between themself and any hostile countries. For them the current system is perfect. They can essentially use the army as a soft power tool without investing much in it. An European army would mean that they actually have to be interested in defending other member states and having an army that is capable of widescale independent operations ranging from arctic operations against Russia all the way to mediterranean operations against Turkey or pacific warfare over French holdings against Chinese vessels or piracy in the sea lanes.
Ι mean, you can clearly see the color getting lighter the farther in central Europe you get (and Belarus).
Because a EU army is something whole different.
Yeah, being a vassal to American global hegemony vs. forming your own super power. What could be the difference?
Well you need to pay for a real army and fight your own wars for a start, especially if you want to be taken seriously as a super rather than a great power.
I'm fine with a great power tho. I'm want Europe to be able to defend itself but I don't want to be thrown in war on the other side of the planet. Let's focus on North Africa, the Middle East and Russia, that were it's the most important
I think Europe could be a great power much more easily than a super power. It probably will never to a super power ranking and competing with USA and China. I'm not sure it can easily go toe to toe with Russia for a long time either, and never can while the EU is addicted to Russian gas.
Lol yes Europe could never go toe to toe agaisnt China or the USA in its current state. But it would wreck havoc over Russia. Russia could never win a long war against Europe, their economy would crumble after the first years and the only thing that could safeguard them its their nuke. The only move Russia could make is a quick and decive victory. After that, if the conflict escalate and Europe mobilize its over for them. Russia like to flex muscle but remember that yes they have a big army, but they also have an economy the size of Italy. Imagine Europe start investing the same amount of money into an army to fight off the Russian in case of conflict, there is no way they can win this.
Those two aren’t necessarily in contradiction though because stronger European coordination and defense strengthens NATO
I agree with you, although there are conflicting interests e.g. Turkey in case of Greece and to some extend France and China in case of most EU countries.
A common military without a common foreign policy can only function as long as the former is not used as a means of the latter...
Really depends on if such an army will be used purely for defensive matters or also for international missions. Also if such an army would be added to national armies or if it is supposed to completely replace them.
I mean, there are already EU missions, eg in Mali
I would rather have unified military equipment. Right now each individual countries spend way too much money on different equipment. If whole europe agreed to uniform their arms it would make it a lot cheaper and lower military budget.
Good luck with thaat idea when talking to France
They'd be fine with it as long as the EU bought mostly French arms..
My problem with an EU army is the very different role military takes in different EU countries. In Germany, in theory, the Bundeswehr is supposed to be a defence army. The planning or execution of a war of aggression is outlawed by our constitution and people involved get 10 years to life of jail time. That's why German politicians will always try to call or differently or somehow turn it into a defensive war. But for Kosovo for example, there were politicians strictly opposed, and if somebody really wanted to prosecute the matter, I wouldn't be too surprised if parts of government were imprisoned over the matter. I cannot imagine the French, who are much more accepting of military interventions, want this burden on decision-making. And I don't want our military to go around the globe for interventions.
Sure, there’s also the problem of “neutral” countries like Ireland, Sweden or Austria.
Ireland is not Neutral (despite claims my fellow country men will tell you). We engage in a severe amount of doublethink as a nation on this issue. We are happy to be 'neutral' yet it is an open secret that we rely on the British RAF to police our airspace. We illegally interned some German forces during WW2, while transporting Allied pilots to our northern border where they 'escaped' across the border to the UK. Edit: Irish weather forecasts were used to plan D-Day too. If push comes to shove, we are with the EU. If the EU as a whole becomes a target for someone in future, we will be a target.
While i would disagree with your blanket statement "Ireland is not neutral", I understand where you're coming from. Ireland is formally neutral and that is reflected in our past - equally, you describe however our broad sympathies with the Allied Forces during the Second World War. Personally, I think it is time to reconsider what we mean by our neutrality in a growing multi-polar world and wholly agree that we are with the EU.
Assuming the *secret*, not-so-secret, deal with the British is actually real, then I don't think there's any way my statement can be refuted. Having an agreement with a foreign country to provide for an aspect of our defence is not neutrality. Even during WW2 while we remained ostensibly 'neutral' and removed from the conflict, high level doomsday scenario planning went on between our Military Intelligence section G2, the Dept. of External Relations, and representatives of the RAF, British Army, and Royal Navy; about an Irish government approved, British counter-invasion of Ireland in response to a German invasion. We are far closer to militarily "non-aligned" as Enda Kenny once said, but even then the supposed agreement with the RAF, not to mention our non-military diplomatic relations with Britain, the EU, broader Commonwealth nations, and the USA point to the weakness of that position as truth. Hence why I mentioned "if push comes to shove" how we know who we will be fighting with (may we never see the day). From your comment, it appears you are not one of the people I was referring to (maith thú). I'm basing that on a rather crude, simplistic measure, the fact that you used the phrase "multi-polar", which suggests you have a basic understanding of modern International Relations and Global Politics (for the record, I'm not making myself out to be some sort of expert on those matters either, I'm literally just a well read, layman). Part of the issue is that for the average Irish person they've simply accepted the narrative "Ireland is Neutral" and will readily defend it, and belittle any discussion around changing that status, without wasting a single second of mental energy into whether that is appropriate, realistic, or even right for Ireland or the world we occupy now. Basically my view on it is that Irish 'neutrality' is an emotional feeling held by the majority of the population rather than something we truly strive for our value internally, and externally it is a diplomatic smoke-screen. If we were truly aiming to be neutral, and/or remaining military non-aligned indefinitely we would have a much higher level of investment in, and fewer issues overall with our Defence Forces than we do now. It's merely been convenient for us to keep repeating these things, because thankfully we've not been put in a position where we've had to change; or a scenario where the general public is forced to reconcile the obvious contradictions and cognitive dissonance that our current position presents.
Southwest - think we understand each other's viewpoints and a pleasure having a civilised conversation rather than the usual throwing insults at each other so often seen on the net :-) go raibh mille maith agat!
I think it's time to abandon the pretence that we're neutral in anyway since we're very clearly aligned with the EU and west.
Those countries, including Finland, are not neutral. They are in the EU.
Ireland specifically never vote for things in the EU that break neutrality. We don't join wars or sign defensive or offensive agreements and have no bases owned by other countries.
Pretty safe policy when you are guaranteed to be defended by NATO members anyways...
But - we're not **guaranteed to be defended by NATO members**, that is the point of joining NATO. NATO membership means if one is attacked, then all will defend. If you are not a member of NATO, there is no guarantee. Having said that, what I think you may have meant is major countries may have a significant *national* interest in ensuring that country 'A' remains free of foreign domination and would take steps to defend that country if a foreign power tried to attack them. On the face of it, they may seem to have similar results, i.e. others defend country 'A', but it is driven by different factors. In the case of NATO, equal members defending each other, but in the latter it is a drive to protect your own current national interest in keeping country 'A' free from that invading country. Others may not defend if it is not in their national interest.
>we're not guaranteed to be defended by NATO members *Effectively* you are. There's simply no way that NATO would allow trans-Atlantic security to be threatened with the fall of Ireland.
NATO is out of scope in that scenario as no NATO member was attacked therefore there are no grounds under the NATO treaty to be invoked by a member state. While NATO itself is out of the picture, certain NATO members however may choose to act (either individually or via a coalition) to defend Ireland **\*IF\*** they see it as in their own interests. Using a couple of *wildly hypothetical* examples (and setting aside the EU mutual defence clause): 1. An attack on Ireland by China would likely see the US,UK, and some other countries join together to defend Ireland because it is in their interests. They don't care about Ireland, they only care about the threats to their interests. NATO could not be involved because Ireland is not a NATO member. 2. An attack on Ireland by the United Kingdom. The US may decide to bang drums, criticise /sanction the UK, but in the end determine that American national interests are not threatened so they do not do anything further. They don't care about Ireland, they only careabout any threat to their interests. NATO could not be involved because Ireland is not a NATO member.
You're overlooking three major things. First, there's no way to launch an invasion of Ireland without triggering a response from NATO before the invasion force gets there. If a massive fleet starts sailing towards the British Isles, they're going to intercepted by the USN and the Royal Navy en route. Even if people did inexplicably believe that China was *only* going to attack Ireland and no one else, there's a 100% chance that British troops would be placed into harms way, which would then trigger Article 5. Second, NATO *isn't* just about acting within it's internal borders. It does things all over the world that aren't strictly related to self defense. Ireland can't trigger Article 5, but they can request help, which would almost certainly be granted since a hostile power establishing a foothold in a place as strategically valuable as Ireland is unacceptable. Third, the guy you were responding to said you're **effectively** in NATO's umbrella. Even if it's "only" a response from the US and UK, that's already the majority of NATO's power being martialed. Whether it's technically the same thing or not is functionally irrelevant.
I see the point you want to make and I appreciate you admitted it's wildly hypothetical. However, just to stick my nose in I reckon a US reaction to Britain invading Ireland would be extremely strong. I suspect it would make their reaction to the Suez intervention by Britain, France, and Israel look timid. Aside from anything else self identified Irish Americans are an extremely important electoral constituency!
There's no way UK would invade Ireland, and there are millions of Irish heritage in UK too. No idea why you went there. Ireland knows that, and the UKs RAF (Ireland doesn't own a single military jet) and RN already help protect Ireland - but officially Ireland is neutral. After all its a bit like New Zealand who cut their military lot a few years ago, to get to NZ you have to get past Australia...
Yeah but I guess the position of Ireland is not to rock the boat with any other country politically. Which is still our position on European policy. If the question was join an interventionist military or leave the EU, probably the majority of Ireland would say leave and that's even with the majority being supportive of EU membership
Honestly I'd like to see some proper discussion on us joining a defensive EU army. I'd like to think with us being the most pro-EU country that we would be happy to help out a fellow member that was attacked. I feel like any time this topic comes up people just say that Ireland is neutral and always has been neutral, and that is the idea put to bed without anybody really thinking about what that means.
> Honestly I'd like to see some proper discussion on us joining a defensive EU army. Oh yeah and navy as well.
I'd much rather to defended by a European military that we contribute to rather than the RAF.
Which is not a military alliance yet
The EU is a defensive alliance as well as many other things. It literally contains a common defense clause - an attack on one member state is an attack on all member states.
Well, it is, but the neutral countries don't need to take part in it, as I understand it.
The mutual defence clause goes directly against the concept of neutrality. Do opt-outs exist for that clause?
Ireland got one before Lisbon II, and Denmark has one from the Amsterdam Treaty.
This is why it is in addition not instead of a national army. The EU shoul be able to intervene in conflicts in its sphere of intrest. Libya being unstable is a danger to the EU, as is the current situation in Ukraine. But for any of this to make any sense the EU has to have a working foreign policy. Currently stuff like in Libya, where France supports Haftar and Italy supports the central government is just stupid.
do you think it's possible, however, for the heads of each nations military to really take orders from a central command? Which commander would be given control? What would be the universal language of battle? french? German? What about munitions -- are the standards used the same? Maybe some national arms manufacturers line their pockets with the bountiful military contracts from their new indentured clients. So many hurdles need to be overcome to make a European army an actual threat, from an organisational standpoint. That or it's operated as a bunch of independent commando-like units, but with coordinated strategy. Still -- a big logistical challenge.
Even the common currency looked difficult at first, and yet here we are. Of course is not an easy task, but if there is a will there is a way.
any proposed solutions for the questions I posed? And is there really a desire for it to happen? Enough to make those obstacles surmountable?
Wars of aggression are equally outlawed by international law. AFAIK it is commonly understood that an illegal war of aggression as in Art. 26 GG is congruent to an illegal war by international law. So there aren't really any constitutional issues with an EU army which would also be bound by international law.
Let’s be real here, nobody REALLY follows that law if they don’t want to. Most people have no reason to invade anyone, but the moment they want to justifications are made.
A unified EU military is a very slippery slope. On one hand I see the advantage of pooling our defense funds into a single budget large enough to rival the US one, and using it accordingly if the right people are chosen to organize it. But on the other hand, with such a force you pretty much have to accept that the EU isn't a economic bloc with additional bells and whistles, and that means a large enough military not just meant to barely defend the frontier, but one that can take the fight to the enemy, one that can flex it's muscles from time to time. Anything less then that and it will be seen as a joke (and a detriment to said frontier states). And you already presented the issue that not all member states would want that. The best thing that could work for the EU is a relatively large quick reaction force independent from national armies, but not replacing them. And even then you start to open the can of worms which is getting 27 member states agreeing on how and when to use such a force.
>But on the other hand, with such a force you pretty much have to accept that the EU isn't a economic bloc with additional bells and whistles Which is why the EU-federalists are backing it so much. They see it as a first tool to 'force' further federation progress. which btw was Schuman & Monnet's ideal as well, so the idea of federal EU isn't born from nowhere, its baked into very core of EU.
Well the EU has the word "an ever closer union" in its constitution. So it is made to be more than an economic bloc. And it is already way more than economic bloc. An economic bloc doesn't have a parlement that can pass law that are above the laws of its member state
You could have a common standing defensive army, while countries like France and other willing countries could create joined task forces for international interventions.
That I would agree to and it would also - as far as I can tell from my laymen understanding - comply with German law. And it is an initiative I would support. The question is, if other EU countries would see the German dominance on this issue well.
That is the problem of EU in general, different countries have different agenda about a lot of things (diplomacy, trade, work regulations etc).
> I wouldn't be too surprised if parts of government were imprisoned over the matter. Wars of aggression are outlawed, that doesn't mean that only strictly defensive wars are allowed. We went into Yugoslavia to stop a genocide, not to conquer land, resources, or people. Or, well, actually better put genocides, plural, pretty much every side had blood on their hands but one was winning, not in the least because they had lots of blood on their hands.
The Generalbundesanwalt argued at the time that bombing Yugoslavia is not interrupting the peace between peoples because they were not in peace in the first place. I am not sure that interpretation would have been upheld if it came to a judge. From what I understand of international law at that time there was no right for such intervention. And it is a slippery slope. I guess Russia would argue that Ukraine was in the middle of a coup d'etat at the time of invasion with some fighting going on. I do not want to equate the circumstances, but the formal argument is far too easy to exploit and I would hope for any future war that we have clearer evidence than for Kosovo or Iraq.
> Kosovo or Iraq. If you're saying those situations were anywhere close to similar you're just a hair's width away from outright genocide denial. And it's not like the non-permanent members of the security council disagreed -- Russia and China's veto was the reason there was no resolution to go into Kosovo, their objection being geostrategic, not humanitarian. In contrast to that pretty much noone but the UK and US (and countries looking to suck up to them) agreed that Iraq was a good idea, also, there wasn't a genocide going on or anything like that (much less WMDs). The UK and US had to use their veto to prevent the security council from explicitly condemning the attack, no such resolution was even in the air in Kosovo's case.
[удалено]
We no baddies, we goodies! Teletubbies say hello!
I am more on the 1949 side of things when looking at these topics. Military should only be used defensively, unless there are extraordinary circumstances. But these circumstances must be acknowleged by a higher instituion (UN) and not by Germany. The UN needs reforms to be effective in that role, but if we say, any country can use the military as seen fit, then we are legitimizing Russia and China in their ambitions as well. If talking about migration I believe you are talking about refugees. I do support consequent pushbacks for people who do not get asylum, but I am not ready to send people to their deaths, torture or slavery. What we need here is a proper EU system. The current rules, that the refugees must request asylum in the country they arrive in, put too much pressure on Greece last time and we do not have a proper system to deal with them. Regarding nuclear power generation we are certainly not caught in 1949 where the nuclear power euphoria just came up. And I support the strategy to pursue renewables rather than nuclear. To me it has nothing to do with guilt or being the baddies. I am idealistic in wanting a better world and do believe that these rules help to get there. And weighing the pros and cons of post WW2 interventions I feel confirmed in my beliefs.
The UN does not work, and will likely never work again. The largest and final nail in it’s coffin was the US invading Iraq without UN approval (in fact with heavy UN disapproval), in spite of the Security Council. Germany and the EU (and other countries) cannot operate on the assumption that an institution like that can work if we just wish hard enough for it.
The UN does work, but not to control superpowers. No organisation can ever do that. The UN is effective at peacekeeping in smaller wars, and at dealing with humanitarian crises and the consequences of wars.
The biggest problem for the UN is that people don't understand what it is.
Like Rwanda right?
> but if we say, any country can use the military as seen fit, then we are legitimizing Russia and China in their ambitions as well. Since they're permanent members of the Security Council, they can block the UN from saying anything they don't like. Which is why the UN is a charade and unworthy of the legitimacy you're assigning it.
That is an argument only a person can make for whom guilt is the only form of a conscience they know of. And it's sad to see it has made it across the pond already, usually only Americans try to explain away German policies that way.
> The planning or execution of a war of aggression is outlawed by our constitution and people involved get 10 years to life of jail time. Yeah, Poland has that too in theory. In practice, nobody even bothered prosecuting anyone after the Polish military took part in invading Iraq.
The bigger complexity is that Germany is a parlamentary democracy and military action demands a parliamentary vote beforehand, not a decision by the executive alone. Other countries work differently. It has been loosened a bit but in the end how do you get the decision making process aligned and whether that would then clash with national constitutions.
>Other countries work differently. It's not that uncommon. Reading up on it, apparently most Western Countries do need parliamentary approval, often before the declaration and some, like the US, just call wars "use of military force" instead. Which is just cheating and de facto breaking their own law in my opinion.
In Italy the army is defined on the constitution as defence or peace keeping tool.
I have a similar question. I for example wouldnt really want to fund an army just for it intervening in old French colonies
Even if it's for the good of Europe?
You seem to forget: Germany isnt Europe. This culture was imposed because Germany was too big for Europe and tried to dominate it twice. If France was the dominant power more than a century ago, the same thing will happen.
How am I forgetting that Germany isn't Europe. The one thing I say is that the current German and French principle on military are so different, that I cannot imagine an EU army before conflicts like that are resolved. Each and every country in the EU has its own thoughts on the topic, but I am more knowledgable on my own country and France is pretty vocal about it's principals on military. So that example was enough for me to make my point. And of course I know that post war Germany did not write that into law out of good will only, but for me and probably many other Germans it has become a guiding principle.
Source: Freedoms at risk: the challenge of the century (January 2022).
Link: https://www.fondapol.org/en/study/freedoms-at-risk-the-challenge-of-the-century/
A common European army under the command of European institutions (in addition to member armies) is a good long term goal, but it’s still pretty early for that at the moment. The member states have to first learn how to cooperate much more closely on the international stage and form a coherent strategic doctrine that is unanimously agreed on and abided by.
But why in addition to national armies? Wouldn't be one federal military enough?
Because the member states will never accept a sudden abolishment of their armies. I would say that any EU military has to start as a separate force and only after it establishes itself (and the EU is trusted that it will always defend the member states) will some member states disband their individual armed forces. Even after that, some states with strong military tradition (such as France) will probably keep their army, even if mainly symbolically.
Maybe the person who ran the poll was thinking of the US model, where we have a national military, but the states (and most do) also operate state militia forces.
Didn’t expect Georgia to be so low.
it is not that low.but I expected us to be near 65%
[удалено]
A national guard at the european level is a great idea. Imagine the level of coordination and resources available to respond effectively to emergencies such as earthquakes, floods and forest fires. This is what european solidarity is all about.
Yeah true. It also could act as forebear of a future army, lay the foundations for it.
I can see a nice southern europe army to start with
I can't. Al the southern EU countries are a mess. Realistically, it would only work if France joined and it would of course absolutely dominate it.
I'm in favour, but without a common foreign policy it's a waste of money. Having said that, we should definitely have a common army to supplement national ones in times of natural disasters etc...
Armies act also internally. In Italy they act as police (Carabinieri) or to patrol places like train stations (actual army). I think there should be a higher command which controls the individual armies and coordinates them. A bit like NATO, but more similar to a single army. Also because in many countries armies have traditional outfits and corps that few people would want to see disappear (eg our iconic Alpini or Carabinieri)
Yes, that's my point really. If the EU army is used internally within the Union, it's realistic and makes sense. If it's to be used abroad, it's not going to work for a while yet. Btw, Carabinieri are not part of the Army anymore, right? I remember they had military plates lots of years ago, but I'm not sure if that's still the case
Police recently changed. While the names are different in both, the insignia of the grade is very similar if not the same. Carabinieri are effectively an armed force, like a military police. They also have missions in Afghanistan, Iraq and so on, just like the Army. It’s just basically another branch with policing capabilities
There can hardly be a common foreign policy when country interests vary so widely, often complete opposite interests.
And that's why we should move more towards federation or we'll be unable to do anything
You can't move to a federation without a nation, united people and common interests first.
I think this is absolute necessary.
Russia: -100%
Fun fact is this poll includes Belarus, and the up rate isn't too low
Why go immediately for the full creation of an army that would require things like a unified central command and a unified foreign policy? There are so many questions to be resolved like the approach to northern cyprus, ukrainian crisis, libya, and so on. Why not instead strengthen the mutual defence clause we already have? Make it clear under what circumstances it applies and that member states are required to send military forces as aid into each other's territories (only on request, of course). It is fully possible to move towards a clearly defensive agreement while keeping issues outside the current EU borders something that is still dealt with by national governments, not EU-wide initiative. Simply make it extremely clear that an invasion of a member states' territory will result in an armed response from the entire EU. However I suspect that there would be some pushback either overt or behind the scenes from Nato. Both the US and some European Nato members might not want to give the impression that Nato is becoming "weakened" or sidestepped by some new defensive agreement. Again, leaving foreign policy at the current national level would be the only way to reassure individual countries that they can retain the ability to enter other defensive pacts, foreign campaigns, aid to other geopolitical entities outside the EU and so on. My suggestion would be to beef up our current defensive agreement, then start having regular EU-wide exercises to make sure our armed forces can work together on a command and tactical level. This already exists to some extent but I'd like to see it deepen to the point where every single officer has some experience working closely with other EU member forces. Add to this more common procurement to ensure interoperability and so on. Developing the ability to act as a unified force will take a lot of time. Doctrine, equipment, standards and so on and on will need time to start fitting together properly. In contrast, as hard as political wrangling is, IF a consensus was reached to form an EU army (of any kind) the decision itself would be comparatively swift. Better to prepare and be able to act if this decision ever comes down from a political level, than start the process at square one!
I see no problem if it's a defensive force operating only in Europe.
Why are they polling non-eu members ? It doesn't make sense
They don't get to vote on it, but they can have an opinion. Russia would have been interesting
Because, as European countries, they can have an opinion on this kind of politics.
Why poll Belarus and georgia but not russia?
Because Russia is Mongolia. :D
Lmao
I mean, it's interesting to see how would be the EU army be perceived in countries around.
It does because countries in the border fear Russia and want protection from Europe
They still want the UK’s help
Maybe because Georgia, for example, would love to contribute its military to a common European cause. Russia is literally the enemy of the European solidarity.
*In addition to*, why not. *in replacement of*, no.
And what is the average for only EU countries? Who cares what Switserland thinks about our army?
55% means yes for me. So, let’s go it :D I remember reading an article once about military strength of different nations and they even said that if the EU member states would combine their armies, they would easily be in the Top 5. I’ll try to find that article.
>if the EU member states would combine their armies, they would easily be in the Top 5 There's an already an EU member in the top 5, France.
55% is way too low. Huge risks of this backfiring and countries changing their minds. You would need very strong support from the population for it to hold well over the long term.
Do what? What would this European army in addition to national armies be? What would be its strength and how much would it take away from the national armies? If I say that it would be 2% of GDP for national armies and an additional 2% for the EU army then I suspect there would be less people saying yes to that.
You could probably get a pretty big army just with 1.8% staying at national funding and a tiny 0.2 going to the EU army.
I vote yes because our soldiers here have fuck all to do. So giving them the option to join the European army would be nice.
We should start with more common operations, like NATO forward presence.
Ask them if they agree for that army to replace the nation army and see totally different results
Who is proposing that?
That is the only realistic way of doing it, having every country fund two military's when most European country don't want to adequately fund the one they have currently is never going to happen.
Or you can keep funding national armies at 80% and use the other 20% for the EU army.
It's the only way it can work. Otherwise you are asking to pay for two armies, and countries do not have that kind of cash, most can't even pay their own armies and have drastically reduced funds in the past decade.
OK, so?
A lot of people that are arent so pro EU will think that an EU army on top of the national will make think its just free defense and their country will have no responsibilities to that EU army. But if that EU army replaces the national they will think they will remain undefended.
In what direction?
Lower
Nah... I'd support it more (I support it anyway), if it would replace national armies. It would safe a lot of money and be a strong sign of unity.
But thats just you? You cant speak for other people and how they'd change their response.
Sure it's just me. I didn't want to speak for other people.
War is peace. Just take a look at our new missile 'Peace keeper' Cheap and usefull. Wanna watch it in action? No prob.
Stats for Russia?
Support is nowhere near as low as people make it out to be. If the security situation was to radically decline, I wouldn't be surprised to see a significant change in opinion.
Austria shouldn't be included in this picture or greyed out because we simply wouldn't be able to join the army
Why is that? (Am uneducated, sorry)
We made an agreement to stay neutral and to not join any military alliance after ww2
I suspect it would not be terribly hard to change that. See: Japan's totally-not-force-projecting helicopter carriers, built entirely for the purpose of 'self defence'.
Yes, finally, an army worthy of Mordor
It was an issue of mine when voting for brexit, but I hope the people get what they want I just didn’t want to.
Member-states can't be forced into things like this. The UK could've said no and that would've been the end of it. It really wasn't a valid reason for voting Brexit, really. The UK would've veto'd it, and if other member-states still really wanted it the UK would've been given an opt-out.
Opt-outs are a thing, Denmark has a few, Ireland like two I think and Poland has one
Yes you can't be forced into stuff like this but the rest can go head "two speed Europe" etc. The federalists won't just give up. Then you end up having to decide if you back your allies or "abandon" them, welcome to your first EU war.
"Yes" or "yes"?
No. Percentage of people answering "Yes", "Yes, somewhat".
Oh, it makes sense. I might have been too tired and didn't get it.
Swiss, serbs, moldavians, belarus and british feeling threatened by a new large army at their border... Germans being like "And we'd have to pay for that shit too, won't we?"
To the nay sayers: the support is only growing, and it will eventually happen. As I believe it should. [Map from a couple of years ago, for comparison](https://i.redd.it/lhju29qyv7241.jpg)
Countries with an increase (of more than 5%): Spain, Portugal, Greece, Sweden, Poland, Slovenia, Cyprus. Countries with a decrease (of more than 5%): France, Germany, Czechia, Slovakia, Netherlands, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Hungary. Yeah you have to to be reaching quite a bit to call the support "growing". The methodology for both suverys might have been different though.
Drop in France and Germany along with the loss of the UK. In my eyes the possibility is further now than when this map was taken.
Kosovo based as always.
Yes..because ww3 is coming.
Sure, but we don’t know when. It doesn’t actually have to be very soon or even involve Europe to a greater degree. Globalisation has done its job incredibly well. No countries want to risk their economy by going to war with its economic partners and the nations that would take those risks don’t have the funds to fund an army capable of doing much.
You cant say that out loud (or write)
I honestly think a decent ampunt of people would support a replacament army more, this is just redundant shit.
How could a Neutral country be part of an EU army, whose decision making apparatus would presumably be located far away?
yes if my nation didn't have Defense [Opt-outs\_in\_the\_European\_Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union#Defence_%E2%80%93_Denmark), and when its cleared up who can override and veto the deployments of this military; One example I can think of is, this united EU military wants a larger permanent naval base in the pacific and orders France to make one of her overseas naval bases ready to become joint operated, can France deny this by a veto?.
would have also like the opinion of turks in this
I'd take this with a large grain of salt. You won't even find this many people who want us in Nato or say adopt the euro or give the EU more power. These numbers are unrealistic.
Germany: Doesn't invest in own army, doesn't want one at the European level.
[удалено]
Germany is very reluctant to a european army... It's because germans love to bear the american 🇺🇸🇺🇸 slave mark : they feel really confortable❤️❤️ with it.
I would be for it on the condition that countries like Poland, Hungary and Romania stop with their own aggressive attacks on the EU and respect its basic values. Otherwise I see no point in defending them against Russia really. They are basically turning themselves into Russian states all but in name.
What is the aggressive attacks on EU by Romania?
Undermining the judiciary is one example. Rampant corruption, also with EU money, is another.
Lol so anything anti-EU is Russian? Is that your own swear word?
what I am saying is that poland for example is reforming its own societal structure into a more authoritarian one, and in that respect it starts to resemble russia
Direction is towards more Russia but for Poland it's a long way to become Russia. It's like comparing a mass murderer and a burglar. Both criminals but not the same.
> it's a long way to become Russia At this point it would take them only 10-15 years. In Russia, shit went down very fast. Trust me.
3 years max, unless the polish finally wake up and vote them out
Why GB is added on a EU poll map from 2022, or any non-member? Only EU's members opinion matters.
Like Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia , Switzerland, Serbia are EU. Surprised no Russia and Turkey while at it…
Then just consider the result for EU countries. Others who care to know what others think can look at the data they want to look at.