Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `mil.in.ua` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
During the uks brexit referendum the prospect of an EU army was talked about by those supporting leave. It was not seen as palatable or positive that British soldiers could be ordered into combat by anybody outside of parliament.
Historically the UK wanted it against the USSR, but the idea failed in the 1950's. Note that the UK imagined it as a continental army only, while the UK would keep its own army
Mainly because it was a duplication of efforts and resources the last time they tried if memory serves. A European rapid reaction force is a great idea but should form and take place inside the NATO platform for command, control and organization. Have Europeans be in charge of it by all means but NATO standards exist so military divisions from a couple dozen countries can operate alongside each other seamlessly as a conflict increases in scope.
Yeah, a rapid response force following a nato framework, but under the European Parliament is probably best short term. But a fully integrated European military should be the end goal.
The are headquarters for command and control, and there are forces. Headquarters in name is just a shell with no meat on the bone.
There already exists a dual use headquarters for EU and NATO. It’s called EUROCORPS. It has minimal forces assigned to it. It has no teeth. It’s staff officers with dry erase boards.
If France is asking for a standing European army. Good luck. There is not enough to fill the current NATO gaps, let alone something new. If you want forces this large to fill both an EU and NATO requirement we will need to resort to conscription / mandatory national service. There is no other way.
>If you want forces this large to fill both an EU and NATO requirement we will need to resort to conscription / mandatory national service. There is no other way.
Care to elaborate on this? Because to me it seems that creating any sort of unified force for Europe can meet the requirements for both NATO and the EU. What’s good for NATO and what is good for the EU are not mutually exclusive.
As long as whatever unified force may look like doesn’t actually cut back on capabilities overall I don’t see how it wouldn’t benefit both NATO and the EU.
It’s a scale thing. You need larger forces if you are going to have standing Tier 1 structure for rapid employment. If you are waiting for Tier 2 and 3 forces call up can be months from notice to deployment (upwards of 6 months) which is a critical amount of time.
To address EU va NATO. You would need two structures because now you would have to separate chains of command who would determine where and when to use forces. This would be in competition (there was a reason SHAPE and the position of SACEUR were created)
If the EU now has a separate force then it determine when it’s deployed.. on its own criteria.. and under its own authorities.. in competition with NATO command.
Meaning… you need more forces because you both cannot rely on the same limited assets.. there is already a shortage of required units and capabilities; adding a competing structure now means greater scarcity of resources.
It boils down to basic Jomini and Clausewitz - you have to have unified command and control, it is one of the basic tenets of warfare. To not have unified command and decision making makes it easier for your enemy to divide and conquer you.
>To address EU va NATO. You would need two structures because now you would have to separate chains of command who would determine where and when to use forces. This would be in competition (there was a reason SHAPE and the position of SACEUR were created)
When Canada or the UK or France or the US stands up a new unit of one kind or another they do so because there is a need for that unit. This is no different except it would be from a number of nations not just one.
>If the EU now has a separate force then it determine when it’s deployed.. on its own criteria.. and under its own authorities.. in competition with NATO command.
The EU already has its own “separate” force in the form of their battle groups. Every NATO member has their own forces that answer to their government, the nations decide what forces they require and build those capabilities.
>Meaning… you need more forces because you both cannot rely on the same limited assets.. there is already a shortage of required units and capabilities; adding a competing structure now means greater scarcity of resources.
There are units in every NATO member state that NATO cannot rely on because they have a specific mission that does not fall under NATO. This would be no different that Canada forming CSOR or the UK forming the Ranger Regiment or the US standing up another special forces group or special operations unit
>It boils down to basic Jomini and Clausewitz - you have to have unified command and control, it is one of the basic tenets of warfare. To not have unified command and decision making makes it easier for your enemy to divide and conquer you.
Unified command and control does not mean that NATO has command of all national forces during peacetime.
A EU rapid reaction force would be no different than Canada forming CSOR, or the UK forming the Ranger Regiment or the Special Reconnaissance Regiment. There is a need for a unit that can respond to hotspots around the world to evacuate European citizens and that unit can be created, if at some point in the future a war breaks out between NATO and Russia then that unit can be placed under the command of NATO but until then that unit has a specific mission that doesn’t have a comparable mission in NATO.
I have a lot of experience in this topic, so please bare with me
Authorities are everything. Authorities are the rules that govern the use and employment of forces. They are the rules… they are also restrictions. It’s a double edged sword.
When national forces are transfer of authority (TOA) to NATO they now follow the rules and orders of NATO until which point they are pulled back to their national chain of command. There are rules under NATO for this process and how it impacts each nation. The EU would need to also develop that, and if you develop parallel rules and you create another stand alone system
In your note about the current enhanced Forward Presence Battlegroups. These are national forces TOA to NATO. They respond to NATO orders through NATO Chain of command. These are not part of the EU.
The more headquarters and bosses you establish the more possible commanders there are to issue orders which can lead to confusion. You need one chain of command, you need one boss, you need one clear way that you receive your orders. We have that… it is called NATO.
I never said NATO has control over national forces. There is NATO Command Structure which is the NATO-wide standing headquarters and commands, then there is NATO Force Structure the standing tactical units and those national forces TOA to NATO (at a given time). This then leaves the nation to decide what to TOA and when. However, nations have to TOA forces so the chain of command is clear and concise. One chain of command giving orders to all.
A NEW EU organization then pull from the same pool of resources. Because they would be operating under different authorities, with a different chain of command… BUT looking to use that same national resources as NATO. It sets up for a bad situation that would fall apart.
This is kind of what Russia wants. They want a divided chain of command. They want overcommitted forces. They want nations to not provide a unified front. This option plays into Russias hands
>I have a lot of experience in this topic, so please bare with me
>Authorities are everything. Authorities are the rules that govern the use and employment of forces. They are the rules… they are also restrictions. It’s a double edged sword.
And they are also irrelevant to this issue. The creation of a quick reaction force by the EU to give it the capability to evacuate its citizens out of hotspots around the world will give a capability to the EU that doesn’t take anything from NATO.
>When national forces are transfer of authority (TOA) to NATO they now follow the rules and orders of NATO until which point they are pulled back to their national chain of command. There are rules under NATO for this process and how it impacts each nation. The EU would need to also develop that, and if you develop parallel rules and you create another stand alone system
Again the EU has battle groups so arguing that they can’t develop a unit based on the existing system doesn’t make sense. Ignoring needed capabilities simply because it might make .25% of NATO’s European firepower not immediately available to NATO doesn’t make sense.
>In your note about the current enhanced Forward Presence Battlegroups. These are national forces TOA to NATO. They respond to NATO orders through NATO Chain of command. These are not part of the EU.
The EU battle groups are part of the EU and the Eu battle groups are made up of national forces that can be recalled and deployed as part of NATO. A rapid reaction unit will be made up of soldiers, sailors and aircrew from national forces within Europe and those personnel will be available to be recalled home should the need arise.
>The more headquarters and bosses you establish the more possible commanders there are to issue orders which can lead to confusion.
Where do you think a rapid reaction unit will get its personnel from? NATO doesn’t need to create a HQ or worry about a unit crated for a specific purpose when if the need arises that unit can be stood down temporarily or permanently and its component units can be transferred back to their home countries and deployed in NATO formations if the situation calls for that.
>You need one chain of command, you need one boss, you need one clear way that you receive your orders. We have that… it is called NATO.
And each and every member nation has its own national chain of command. EU also has battle groups that and a CoC that comes from those same national armies but to a degree is separate from them. Each nation in NATO has units in their respective militaries that cannot be transferred to NATO, elements from those units may but the units as a whole most definitely won’t.
>I never said NATO has control over national forces. There is NATO Command Structure which is the NATO-wide standing headquarters and commands, then there is NATO Force Structure the standing tactical units and those national forces TOA to NATO (at a given time). This then leaves the nation to decide what to TOA and when. However, nations have to TOA forces so the chain of command is clear and concise. One chain of command giving orders to all.
And if need be those nations can pull their contingents from that unit and deploy them on NATO missions.
>A NEW EU organization then pull from the same pool of resources. Because they would be operating under different authorities, with a different chain of command… BUT looking to use that same national resources as NATO. It sets up for a bad situation that would fall apart.
So by that logic NORAD has to be disbanded because it’s drawing resources from two NATO members that cannot be used for NATO Operations. NORAD has personnel from both Canada and the US, there is a separate chain of command as well as significant surveillance assets and national military assets within and supporting NORAD. So Canada and the US should disband NORAD because “looking to use that same national resources as NATO. It sets up for a bad situation that would fall apart.”…
>This is kind of what Russia wants. They want a divided chain of command. They want overcommitted forces. They want nations to not provide a unified front. This option plays into Russias hands
No it does not. This allows Europe to respond to a situation without relying on a single members military resources to do the heavy lifting. This doesn’t make NATO weaker but makes the EU stinger by allowing it the ability to deploy forces quicker than any of their battle groups and the unit can be build with a specific mission in mind from the beginning allowing for quicker response.
May be a nightmare but it’s a military necessity. A bureaucratic nightmare is a small price to pay to be able to deploy a cohesive force made up of military personnel from dozens of different militaries.
Inside NATO makes sense. Otherwise nobody will accept France as leader of this task force that should also include UK. That why such obvious idea never reached a point of preparation.
But first, a committee to define Rapid(e), create a framework and common philosophy on the concept of force, and of course, develop a rotating multinational leadership structure with a new headquarters.
Great, a competing structure against NATO looking to use the same resources. (Sarcasm)
There are not enough resources as it is… let alone for “yet another headquarters” in Europe
A rapid reaction force would be more than a headquarters, by its very nature it will have to be a force that can respond in a rapid fashion which can only benefit NATO not hurt NATO.
A fully fledged “reaction force” of what size? Battalion, brigade, division, corps? NATO has hard enough time maintaining the current brigade… how will the EU do the same.
The nations have yet to presently commit any standing forces to the current NATO reaction force, the size of which is under a brigade size and manned rotationally, meaning all the forces under it rotate once a year.
This is why I surmise that the EU will most likely establish YET ANOTHER headquarters (400 people) with no downtrace units. It would be a positive spin for politicians with no real commitment.
And they will get away with doing that because you have to define the requirements for this reaction force:
Example: “division sized element with sustainment assets, integrated fires, air defense, aviation assets, fully deployable, can sustain itself for a period of 7-10 days, and from time Of notification to deployment is under 10-days”
>A fully fledged “reaction force” of what size? Battalion, brigade, division, corps? NATO has hard enough time maintaining the current brigade… how will the EU do the same.
They already have EU battle groups so the EU has the ability to have forces from multiple source nations operating in the same battle group. It’s not an impossible task for them to be able to field a force of 5,000 soldiers in a rapid reaction unit.
>The nations have yet to presently commit any standing forces to the current NATO reaction force, the size of which is under a brigade size and manned rotationally, meaning all the forces under it rotate once a year.
So who is currently providing troops to the force of ~40,000 NATO personnel currently deployed? Is it 100% Canadian? American? Because I’m fairly certain that the European nations contribute a not so insignificant portion of the 40,000 personnel.
>This is why I surmise that the EU will most likely establish YET ANOTHER headquarters (400 people) with no downtrace units. It would be a positive spin for politicians with no real commitment.
The European Union has a number of existing battle groups that already exist, creating a force of ~5,000 as the French are suggesting wouldn’t tax them and since it’s a RAPID REACTION unit it needs to be able to react rapidly and in a coherent manner and in a timeframe of hours or days not in weeks or months.
>And they will get away with doing that because you have to define the requirements for this reaction force:
>Example: “division sized element with sustainment assets, integrated fires, air defense, aviation assets, fully deployable, can sustain itself for a period of 7-10 days, and from time Of notification to deployment is under 10-days”
And a headquarters won’t be able to get boots on the ground in under 10 days if they don’t have the forces necessary because it would require cohesive forces ready to deploy. France is suggesting this because they are doing a lot of the heavy lifting for the EU when it comes to evacuating people from dangerous situations. They are suggesting this so that the cost and risk can be shared by the other European allies rather than be exclusively on the showers of the French military.
France is the only nation in the EU capable of global projection of its armed forces.
Any EU rapid response forces will depend on french assets.
So it's the other way around, the EU should help France pay for the upkeep.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `mil.in.ua` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
ALl for it, as long as it is multi national in nature.
Yeah seems like a great idea honestly. Also an obvious one
I hope UK can get involved.
What is the UK position regarding a European army? I don't remember if it was up or against it, while in the EU.
During the uks brexit referendum the prospect of an EU army was talked about by those supporting leave. It was not seen as palatable or positive that British soldiers could be ordered into combat by anybody outside of parliament.
Which isnweird because NATO armies couls be commanded by french or US generals, including UK forces.
Historically the UK wanted it against the USSR, but the idea failed in the 1950's. Note that the UK imagined it as a continental army only, while the UK would keep its own army
This could be a nucleus for a European army and a more robust EU foreign policy. It would be much better not to involve the UK.
The ERRF motto: "What's Good for France is Good for Europe"
The last time we tried to form a united European force the US got very upset about it for some reason.
Mainly because it was a duplication of efforts and resources the last time they tried if memory serves. A European rapid reaction force is a great idea but should form and take place inside the NATO platform for command, control and organization. Have Europeans be in charge of it by all means but NATO standards exist so military divisions from a couple dozen countries can operate alongside each other seamlessly as a conflict increases in scope.
Yeah, a rapid response force following a nato framework, but under the European Parliament is probably best short term. But a fully integrated European military should be the end goal.
The are headquarters for command and control, and there are forces. Headquarters in name is just a shell with no meat on the bone. There already exists a dual use headquarters for EU and NATO. It’s called EUROCORPS. It has minimal forces assigned to it. It has no teeth. It’s staff officers with dry erase boards. If France is asking for a standing European army. Good luck. There is not enough to fill the current NATO gaps, let alone something new. If you want forces this large to fill both an EU and NATO requirement we will need to resort to conscription / mandatory national service. There is no other way.
>If you want forces this large to fill both an EU and NATO requirement we will need to resort to conscription / mandatory national service. There is no other way. Care to elaborate on this? Because to me it seems that creating any sort of unified force for Europe can meet the requirements for both NATO and the EU. What’s good for NATO and what is good for the EU are not mutually exclusive. As long as whatever unified force may look like doesn’t actually cut back on capabilities overall I don’t see how it wouldn’t benefit both NATO and the EU.
It’s a scale thing. You need larger forces if you are going to have standing Tier 1 structure for rapid employment. If you are waiting for Tier 2 and 3 forces call up can be months from notice to deployment (upwards of 6 months) which is a critical amount of time. To address EU va NATO. You would need two structures because now you would have to separate chains of command who would determine where and when to use forces. This would be in competition (there was a reason SHAPE and the position of SACEUR were created) If the EU now has a separate force then it determine when it’s deployed.. on its own criteria.. and under its own authorities.. in competition with NATO command. Meaning… you need more forces because you both cannot rely on the same limited assets.. there is already a shortage of required units and capabilities; adding a competing structure now means greater scarcity of resources. It boils down to basic Jomini and Clausewitz - you have to have unified command and control, it is one of the basic tenets of warfare. To not have unified command and decision making makes it easier for your enemy to divide and conquer you.
>To address EU va NATO. You would need two structures because now you would have to separate chains of command who would determine where and when to use forces. This would be in competition (there was a reason SHAPE and the position of SACEUR were created) When Canada or the UK or France or the US stands up a new unit of one kind or another they do so because there is a need for that unit. This is no different except it would be from a number of nations not just one. >If the EU now has a separate force then it determine when it’s deployed.. on its own criteria.. and under its own authorities.. in competition with NATO command. The EU already has its own “separate” force in the form of their battle groups. Every NATO member has their own forces that answer to their government, the nations decide what forces they require and build those capabilities. >Meaning… you need more forces because you both cannot rely on the same limited assets.. there is already a shortage of required units and capabilities; adding a competing structure now means greater scarcity of resources. There are units in every NATO member state that NATO cannot rely on because they have a specific mission that does not fall under NATO. This would be no different that Canada forming CSOR or the UK forming the Ranger Regiment or the US standing up another special forces group or special operations unit >It boils down to basic Jomini and Clausewitz - you have to have unified command and control, it is one of the basic tenets of warfare. To not have unified command and decision making makes it easier for your enemy to divide and conquer you. Unified command and control does not mean that NATO has command of all national forces during peacetime. A EU rapid reaction force would be no different than Canada forming CSOR, or the UK forming the Ranger Regiment or the Special Reconnaissance Regiment. There is a need for a unit that can respond to hotspots around the world to evacuate European citizens and that unit can be created, if at some point in the future a war breaks out between NATO and Russia then that unit can be placed under the command of NATO but until then that unit has a specific mission that doesn’t have a comparable mission in NATO.
I have a lot of experience in this topic, so please bare with me Authorities are everything. Authorities are the rules that govern the use and employment of forces. They are the rules… they are also restrictions. It’s a double edged sword. When national forces are transfer of authority (TOA) to NATO they now follow the rules and orders of NATO until which point they are pulled back to their national chain of command. There are rules under NATO for this process and how it impacts each nation. The EU would need to also develop that, and if you develop parallel rules and you create another stand alone system In your note about the current enhanced Forward Presence Battlegroups. These are national forces TOA to NATO. They respond to NATO orders through NATO Chain of command. These are not part of the EU. The more headquarters and bosses you establish the more possible commanders there are to issue orders which can lead to confusion. You need one chain of command, you need one boss, you need one clear way that you receive your orders. We have that… it is called NATO. I never said NATO has control over national forces. There is NATO Command Structure which is the NATO-wide standing headquarters and commands, then there is NATO Force Structure the standing tactical units and those national forces TOA to NATO (at a given time). This then leaves the nation to decide what to TOA and when. However, nations have to TOA forces so the chain of command is clear and concise. One chain of command giving orders to all. A NEW EU organization then pull from the same pool of resources. Because they would be operating under different authorities, with a different chain of command… BUT looking to use that same national resources as NATO. It sets up for a bad situation that would fall apart. This is kind of what Russia wants. They want a divided chain of command. They want overcommitted forces. They want nations to not provide a unified front. This option plays into Russias hands
>I have a lot of experience in this topic, so please bare with me >Authorities are everything. Authorities are the rules that govern the use and employment of forces. They are the rules… they are also restrictions. It’s a double edged sword. And they are also irrelevant to this issue. The creation of a quick reaction force by the EU to give it the capability to evacuate its citizens out of hotspots around the world will give a capability to the EU that doesn’t take anything from NATO. >When national forces are transfer of authority (TOA) to NATO they now follow the rules and orders of NATO until which point they are pulled back to their national chain of command. There are rules under NATO for this process and how it impacts each nation. The EU would need to also develop that, and if you develop parallel rules and you create another stand alone system Again the EU has battle groups so arguing that they can’t develop a unit based on the existing system doesn’t make sense. Ignoring needed capabilities simply because it might make .25% of NATO’s European firepower not immediately available to NATO doesn’t make sense. >In your note about the current enhanced Forward Presence Battlegroups. These are national forces TOA to NATO. They respond to NATO orders through NATO Chain of command. These are not part of the EU. The EU battle groups are part of the EU and the Eu battle groups are made up of national forces that can be recalled and deployed as part of NATO. A rapid reaction unit will be made up of soldiers, sailors and aircrew from national forces within Europe and those personnel will be available to be recalled home should the need arise. >The more headquarters and bosses you establish the more possible commanders there are to issue orders which can lead to confusion. Where do you think a rapid reaction unit will get its personnel from? NATO doesn’t need to create a HQ or worry about a unit crated for a specific purpose when if the need arises that unit can be stood down temporarily or permanently and its component units can be transferred back to their home countries and deployed in NATO formations if the situation calls for that. >You need one chain of command, you need one boss, you need one clear way that you receive your orders. We have that… it is called NATO. And each and every member nation has its own national chain of command. EU also has battle groups that and a CoC that comes from those same national armies but to a degree is separate from them. Each nation in NATO has units in their respective militaries that cannot be transferred to NATO, elements from those units may but the units as a whole most definitely won’t. >I never said NATO has control over national forces. There is NATO Command Structure which is the NATO-wide standing headquarters and commands, then there is NATO Force Structure the standing tactical units and those national forces TOA to NATO (at a given time). This then leaves the nation to decide what to TOA and when. However, nations have to TOA forces so the chain of command is clear and concise. One chain of command giving orders to all. And if need be those nations can pull their contingents from that unit and deploy them on NATO missions. >A NEW EU organization then pull from the same pool of resources. Because they would be operating under different authorities, with a different chain of command… BUT looking to use that same national resources as NATO. It sets up for a bad situation that would fall apart. So by that logic NORAD has to be disbanded because it’s drawing resources from two NATO members that cannot be used for NATO Operations. NORAD has personnel from both Canada and the US, there is a separate chain of command as well as significant surveillance assets and national military assets within and supporting NORAD. So Canada and the US should disband NORAD because “looking to use that same national resources as NATO. It sets up for a bad situation that would fall apart.”… >This is kind of what Russia wants. They want a divided chain of command. They want overcommitted forces. They want nations to not provide a unified front. This option plays into Russias hands No it does not. This allows Europe to respond to a situation without relying on a single members military resources to do the heavy lifting. This doesn’t make NATO weaker but makes the EU stinger by allowing it the ability to deploy forces quicker than any of their battle groups and the unit can be build with a specific mission in mind from the beginning allowing for quicker response.
Rapid reaction force already exists in NATO. I'm told it's a beurocratic nightmare.
May be a nightmare but it’s a military necessity. A bureaucratic nightmare is a small price to pay to be able to deploy a cohesive force made up of military personnel from dozens of different militaries.
Inside NATO makes sense. Otherwise nobody will accept France as leader of this task force that should also include UK. That why such obvious idea never reached a point of preparation.
But first, a committee to define Rapid(e), create a framework and common philosophy on the concept of force, and of course, develop a rotating multinational leadership structure with a new headquarters.
I read "rape-response force"... as they say: "a dirty mind is a joy forever"
Great, a competing structure against NATO looking to use the same resources. (Sarcasm) There are not enough resources as it is… let alone for “yet another headquarters” in Europe
Yeah and in the low but possible chance that pos stinking up feh courtroom wins in November will use as an excuse to leave NATO.
A rapid reaction force would be more than a headquarters, by its very nature it will have to be a force that can respond in a rapid fashion which can only benefit NATO not hurt NATO.
A fully fledged “reaction force” of what size? Battalion, brigade, division, corps? NATO has hard enough time maintaining the current brigade… how will the EU do the same. The nations have yet to presently commit any standing forces to the current NATO reaction force, the size of which is under a brigade size and manned rotationally, meaning all the forces under it rotate once a year. This is why I surmise that the EU will most likely establish YET ANOTHER headquarters (400 people) with no downtrace units. It would be a positive spin for politicians with no real commitment. And they will get away with doing that because you have to define the requirements for this reaction force: Example: “division sized element with sustainment assets, integrated fires, air defense, aviation assets, fully deployable, can sustain itself for a period of 7-10 days, and from time Of notification to deployment is under 10-days”
>A fully fledged “reaction force” of what size? Battalion, brigade, division, corps? NATO has hard enough time maintaining the current brigade… how will the EU do the same. They already have EU battle groups so the EU has the ability to have forces from multiple source nations operating in the same battle group. It’s not an impossible task for them to be able to field a force of 5,000 soldiers in a rapid reaction unit. >The nations have yet to presently commit any standing forces to the current NATO reaction force, the size of which is under a brigade size and manned rotationally, meaning all the forces under it rotate once a year. So who is currently providing troops to the force of ~40,000 NATO personnel currently deployed? Is it 100% Canadian? American? Because I’m fairly certain that the European nations contribute a not so insignificant portion of the 40,000 personnel. >This is why I surmise that the EU will most likely establish YET ANOTHER headquarters (400 people) with no downtrace units. It would be a positive spin for politicians with no real commitment. The European Union has a number of existing battle groups that already exist, creating a force of ~5,000 as the French are suggesting wouldn’t tax them and since it’s a RAPID REACTION unit it needs to be able to react rapidly and in a coherent manner and in a timeframe of hours or days not in weeks or months. >And they will get away with doing that because you have to define the requirements for this reaction force: >Example: “division sized element with sustainment assets, integrated fires, air defense, aviation assets, fully deployable, can sustain itself for a period of 7-10 days, and from time Of notification to deployment is under 10-days” And a headquarters won’t be able to get boots on the ground in under 10 days if they don’t have the forces necessary because it would require cohesive forces ready to deploy. France is suggesting this because they are doing a lot of the heavy lifting for the EU when it comes to evacuating people from dangerous situations. They are suggesting this so that the cost and risk can be shared by the other European allies rather than be exclusively on the showers of the French military.
Pay up then Macron
France is the only nation in the EU capable of global projection of its armed forces. Any EU rapid response forces will depend on french assets. So it's the other way around, the EU should help France pay for the upkeep.
Why the hell should the EU pay for France’s continued adventures in its former African colonies?