Joint eu military

[Grizzlie 0]

Well, it is dilema of all smaller countries. Like kids in sandpit. Be alone, and independent, but in case someone bigger kicks your ass u can only cry, or, loosing a little of independence, yell "My big friends will kick your ass".

And noone can say propabily of war in Europe in next hundred years is about 0. Russia is good example. So far it is more-less stable country, but there r still alot of people who would like Soviet Union's return. And if things go wrong...

@denoir - good point. Some ppl has so "short" memory...

[ralphwiggum 6]

Yeah, that's what you said the first 49 times before you were invaded. Better safe than sorry.

and how many times of those were done by Swedish?

Let's get serious. Europe has been fragmented since c.a. 800AD. and went their own way for last 1200 years. how long would it take something for them to put together 12 centuries of difference?

there are still some power struggles within european union, and it is obvious that most countries are not going to give up their soverignty just yet. I think part of reason why there is an EU force discussion is that creation of EU needs to have some formality. EU got economic coordinance, political coordinance, now last piece of puzzle is military.

personally, i don't give a flying fuck about EU getting their own military as long as they do not end up getting commanded by someone who is bent on <s>taking over</s> liberating neighboring nordic nations. For NATO EU military might be a better solution in accordance with denoir's idea since in case NATO needs to mobilize, EU military can take over with it's pre-determined commanding structure from EU military, thus no need for further coordination, which streamlines the process.

[Tamme 0]

@Kegetys:

It's not only about what good an EU army is for Finland. Don't you care about other European countries? I would be more than willing to defend Europe. I don't want anyone invading France, Estonia, Poland, Spain or any other european country.

I'd even defend Sweden.

Anyways we have fought each other for centuries, I think it's time for us to come to our senses and work together. A strong united Europe is what we need.

[denoir 0]

Yeah, that's what you said the first 49 times before you were invaded. Better safe than sorry.

and how many times of those were done by Swedish?

If Russia invaded Finland 49 times then Sweden liberated it 48

No but seriously, Finland was a province in Sweden for something like 800 years. It's not like Norway that we got by conquest. Finland was an integral part of Sweden and the ties are very close today too. For instance Finnish and Swedish are the official languages in Finland. Some of the best Swedish soldiers were from Finland.

Quote[/b] ]Let's get serious. Europe has been fragmented since c.a. 800AD. and went their own way for last 1200 years. how long would it take something for them to put together 12 centuries of difference?

It depends on who is buying the coffee for the meetings. If they can agree on that, they can agree on anything

No, but seriously, there has been a very rapid development in Europe. The suggestion for the common currency came in 1992. By 2002 it was reality and all the Francs,D-Marks and lires etc were history. Usually these things take a century or so to set up - we did it in 10 years. Looking at it that way, it's going very well.

On the other hand we do still have a lot of issues. Next week the serious constitution talks are to begin and it has already been dubbed as "Europe's week of hell". This is not without a reason. There are some considerable differences in opinion. Another issue is that many Europeans are EU-sceptics. That's to be expected since people tend to be conservative in these matters. Unfortunately we don't have charismatic politicians that could bridge that gap of suspicion. We need some form of common cause, a common vision and a common faith in the EU and that is lacking. I was hoping that the Iraq war could unite the EU, but it has actually only caused problems.

Simply put: We need good leaders and we don't have 'em.

As I said earlier, I'm saddened by the lack of imagination and vision that people display. People see EU as some beaurocratic elitist boy's club for the politicians. They see all the flaws of the system and the petty disputes between the countries when they instead should imagine what the EU could become. This is a very exciting moment in history. EU can become what we make it to be and the worst thing to do is to back away in fear, suspicion and disbelief. We need visionaries, not critics. It's not about how it looks today but about how it will look tomorrow.

[GoOB 0]

@Kegetys:

It's not only about what good an EU army is for Finland. Don't you care about other European countries? I would be more than willing to defend Europe. I don't want anyone invading France, Estonia, Poland, Spain or any other european country.

I'd even defend Sweden.

Anyways we have fought each other for centuries, I think it's time for us to come to our senses and work together. A strong united Europe is what we need.

That argument came up in part during the Euro debate. Frankly I couldn't care less about the other EU countries, it might sound selfish but that's what it is. And again, what is the likelyhood of any major defensive operations being needed in the next hundred maybe thousand years? If any defensive action is needed it wont be neccessary since the countries doing the defending will be wiped out before they have to worry about their troops being overrun.

The biggest threat to a peaceful Europe and world for that matter. Is poverty and disease, not to forget George W.

EDIT: What we need is not a military union, it is a stronger economical union. With more control for the individual nations, to get more influence over the land'o'big. We also need more whiskey and cigars. But that is another thing.

[Grizzlie 0]

I think it is too eraly for UE army (simplyfying).

We often cannot aggree with easy things.

NATO is not ideal, but at last has procedures, rules, chain of command, ect. And it is not enough to erase words "US troops" to make rules for UE.

First of all we do not have idea what really UE army should be and how to use it. We need to think about common foreign policy, and it won't be easy.

Next is common industry. Now more time takes dividing stuff into partsamong countries for producing, than developing. Good example is A400M (ex FLA). It was beeing designed for years, than it took ages to make compromise about production. And maybe in next 10-15 years UE would have own transport plane, of course if it wouldn't become more expencive. It made British so mad that they have lended few Globemasters to allow troops tansport heavy stuff.

If other things would go same way...

Next thing is costs. Most countries r cutting military costs. Who will pay for new army? I rather think that same troops would be in NATO and UE army. I even do not want to start thinking about problems which can it make. One army - 2 commanding structures, propably other rules, ect.

And without resolving this problems UE army would be "paper tiger".

I aggree with denoir that we need visionaries. But so far i can't see any. Can u think about this whole "beaurocratic elitist boy's club for the politicians" making compromises in such important thing very quickly? It will take ages...

And beeing honest i do not think it is most important thing now. Soon there will be 25 countries in UE, and to resolve all problems with it is real big deal.

@ GoOB - u really think like ppl before wwII. I WW had to be "war who ended all wars" - for 21 years. And if we want to avoid mistakes from pre-wwII era we should strictly define what "defensive" means.

[GoOB 0]

I do not think that there will be no more wars. I just find it highly unlikely that a war will spread so far as to effect countries wich are members of the European union. "No" democratic country starts war on another truly democratic country. Who is going to attack any EU country? Seriously, what threats justify the need for the EU to go and form a defensive union? The only thing this union could ever be used for within a reasonable timeframe is to make the U.S step down, wich will happen regardless in due time.

EDIT: I am also willing to redefine the term "The best defence is attacking" I say that the best defence is diplomacy and money.

[iNeo 0]

I do not think that there will be no more wars. I just find it EDIT: I am also willing to redefine the term "The best defence is attacking" I say that the best defence is diplomacy and money.

It may be, until you are actually attacked. Diplomacy won't help you then.

[Grizzlie 0]

I do not think that thinking "country caterogies" is quite correct. If i remember well in Kaliningrad there were 300,000 russian soldiers moved from ex-WP countries. Lets imagine they r rebelling... It is no country attacking...

And even in diplomacy it is good to have some aces in hand

[denoir 0]

I do not think that there will be no more wars. I just find it highly unlikely that a war will spread so far as to effect countries wich are members of the European union.

Amazing how people have short-term or selective memory. We had several wars in Europe the last 10 years. The last one in Kosovo ended 1999. Have you forgotten about that?

Have you forgotten about how pathetic the EU was that could not handle a conflict on our own continent, a war between European nations? No, we could not handle it. The war in Bosnia was resolved once USA stepped in and as was Kosovo.

The constant EU failures in ex-Yugoslavia shows exactly why a common foregin policy and a common military is badly needed. This happened in Europe ffs and we weren't able to do anything constructive about it.

[GoOB 0]

I do not think that there will be no more wars. I just find it highly unlikely that a war will spread so far as to effect countries wich are members of the European union.

Amazing how people have short-term or selective memory. We had several wars in Europe the last 10 years. The last one in Kosovo ended 1999. Have you forgotten about that?

Have you forgotten about how pathetic the EU was that could not handle a conflict on our own continent, a war between European nations? No, we could not handle it. The war in Bosnia was resolved once USA stepped in and as was Kosovo.

The constant EU failures in ex-Yugoslavia shows exactly why a common foregin policy and a common military is badly needed. This happened in Europe ffs and we weren't able to do anything constructive about it.

Here I was referring to the defence of the EU countries. I wasn't referring to countries outside the actual union. And I was also talking about defending the EU "borders" not conflicts arising near them.

I do not think we need a common military, if we need any form of military union it should be an international European peace keeping force appointed and controlled by the EU. Consisting of volountary conscripts and certain units commisioned to serve there by their own countries or by an agreement by EU-staff and the country of unit origin.

[denoir 0]

Slovenia is joining the EU now and Croatia will follow within a couple of years.

So it is the EU and future EU members we are talking about.

This is the downside of democracy. People that havn't got the slightest clue or interest get a vote. Ask anybody that has participated in an international military mission and they'll all point out the benefits of a joint command.

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]A big fat no from me. Basically we have seen how much trust we should place in franco german promisses after then stability pact thing. They make promisses and keep them as long as its in their best interest. If thats going to be the same with a joint military no thank you. For the Netherlands, being a small country, it would basically entail giving command of our army to berlin (i dont have a problem with that) and paris (big problem there, we have seen their courage and leadershipskills in action before). Basically Germany and France need to learn democracy within the EU and not the "We are bigger, we are the boss". That sort of behaviour will be the death of the EU.

NATIONALISM ,in a fact ,is truly what limit's the speed of the European unification process.As such ,i do not think in term's of French and German's etc. .I am an European ,and will joyfully assimilate in the E.U ,even if it has short term drawbacks.And even if the French are such "chauvinists" ,wich really is annoying every of it's neighbours know that (i'm Belgian ;) )We just have to change that chauvinism.

The world is globalizing ,it has been for a time now.The E.U is and was simply an answer on that Globalization.in the future world ,and even now ,our devission's will make our weaker in the world.As thus we have seen the unification process from the 50's going at a slow but steady pace ,and it will continue just as such.This is a matter of EVOLUTION ,it's probably unstopable because it has already come so far asside from all the boundaries that it had to breach.

IMO ,we have entered the age of Globalization.

Can you get a job, because no job application has a tick box saying European.

Personally i don't like having an EU military. I dont trust putting a portion of the British Armed Forces in control of germany of brussels, whoevers in charge.

Anyone heard of the "Joint Vision 2010 scenario"? what is it?

[Grizzlie 0]

@GoOB

I'm aftraid that peacekeeping forces is not enough. It is sad, but true. UE is not in vacuum.

"Si vis pacem, para bellum" - it is still actual, i would say it becomes even more actual day by day. I would aggree that we can have "Rapid Entry" forces to give us time for mobilisation, but they no way can be called peacekeeping forces.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]Can you get a job, because no job application has a tick box saying European.

As European ,i'm allowed to work and live everywhere withing Europe thanks to the Shengen protocol.

[Crazysheep 1]

Personally i don't like having an EU military. I dont trust putting a portion of the British Armed Forces in control of germany of brussels, whoevers in charge.

You have to understand that no country is in charge; it's like saying that Texas owns the rest of the USA because the President happens to be a Texan.

[Baron von Beer 0]

You have to understand that no country is in charge; it's like saying that Texas owns the rest of the USA because the President happens to be a Texan.

Well of course Texas is in charge, not because of the president though. The US knows that if we anger the Texans, they'll go lock themselves in the Alamo again, and fight a short deadly battle, just to prove their point. The other 49 states agreed to just let them have their way.

As far as a unified "EU Armed Forces", will this include equipment standardization? Such as a common assault rifle, machinegun, IFV, MBT, Fighter aircraft, ground attack aircraft, attack and transport choppers, etc? If so, I can already imagine the years of fruitless argument that this will bring forth. Every nation will fight viciously for their equipment to be chosen, to keep their people in the factories building them. They may be "One" nation, but their peopele sure as hell still need a job to put food on the table. Look at the end of most joint projects just between a few nations? This isn't even taking into account differing opinions of what the equipment's specs will be, for current/future projects.

If not, that how will it be standardised? One command? NATO already provides this, at least in theory, durring a combat operation. Also leaves replecements, etc, in the hands of the parent nation, not a "unified" source, unless they plan on stocking the warehouses with 20 kinds of each hardware type. If replacements must be payed for by the parent nation, I imagine they sure as hell will not be eager to entrust their forces in someone elses hands. (They don't have to pay for what is lost, so may not be as carefull as those who do.)

IMO, the issue is a really big, gooey can of worms. Glad I'm not in Europe, and having to make such a decision. (Also the comparison of the US is hardly valid. Each state does not have a centuries old culture, vastly different from the other. Sure, each state has it's own differences, but in the end, we all came from the same place. (That place being everywhere else. ) But it was the people of the original 13 that set out west, filling in the rest (Untill they started coming in from the other side too of course.) The states HAVE fought one war against each other, but look at Europes history? How many wars have been fought between one or more nations against one or more others? About the only similarity in such a comparison is some European nations are about the same size as some US states (But usually Euro nations have MUUUUCHHH larger populations than said US State.)

[crewcutkid reincarnated! 0]

To me, the answer is simple. No. If you unite a military, you will find that the nationalities will tend to be distrustful of each other, and the chain of command would be a nightmare. The only reason the allied alliance worked during WW2 is due to one sole purpose- to destroy the imperial Japanese and Nazi Germany regimes. Without a goal or purpose in mind, unifying to create a gigantic military would be stupid. And, if war does break out, you will face a situation like in all civil wars. The military will divide, and ultimately will have dire consequences for whoever chooses the losing side. (not that a usual war doesn't, but repercussions could be unfair.) Eizei, I dunno what your general problem is with the us, but you have got to open your closed mind.

-Crew

[joltan 0]

Then tell me how the German-French brigade has been operation for over a decade now? Joint forces of two 'arch enemies'...

[ozanzac 0]

IMO, sure, you can have your Euro Army, probably would be a good idea if you want linguistic and logistic nightmare. Any unified Euro Army at the present time would be pointless. Picture this: All Euro nations combine their armed forces for the United Euro Army. What would happen: Countries armed forces would now just be divisions. No longer would their be a Royal Navy, but just a EU Navy: British Taskforce or Division. Pointless really, same people under a different badge.

In creating a EU army, countries would be losing their National identities in more ways than one. The French as we know, enjoy engineering, and designing their own equiptment as do the British. If everyone (countries of Europe) managed to gently pull this off, it'd be a great success. But there are many strings attached, and it would be at least two generations of Military Equiptment away until a EU Defense Force would really mean something. Where everyone has the same equiptment, and systems. No military secrets. And where everyone has the same amount of say as everyone else does as to how such a large and diverse force is used.

I want all Europeans to carefully think about it. Are you prepared to discard your national identity in order to be regarded as European and only European? What else is the EU planning to do in order to unify Europeans? Have a blanket govenment, language and/or religion?

Personally, I view a unified armed force for Europe has the potential to splinter the EU. Take Iraq. Most European mainland nations disagreed with Britains involvement in Iraq. Under a new system where the military is unified who could dictate how the force is used? One nations interest in the EU may oppose another, equalling a path for confrontation.

Tick, tock, tick, tock, goes the clock for yet another major conflict within Europe.

[denoir 0]

Hehe, what a load of crap

European militaries have worked on various misssions under a joint command for over 10 years now. For instance my CO in Kosovo was German and his CO was French. It worked flawlessly. I've had more "linguistic problems" with my Swedish CO's.

Divisive? No - uniting. How many here think that the military gets to make political decisions? Those of you that raised your hands - you're morons. Decisions of what the military does is made by the politicians. The EU is a political union designed to unify European political and economic agendas.

A common military is actually a much smaller step than a common currency. And we did that in 10 years. A military cooperation is the natural next step.

There is no question about if it will be good for Europe. The politicians and the military agree that it will. All the European countries agree. A majority of Europeans support it. The questiom is if it will be good for the world when the EU outguns USA.

[ozanzac 0]

Hehe, what a load of crap

Crap as it maybe in your view, but from an outsiders view, for this new military to not be simply a rebranded  'National/Divisional' army would mean units where Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish and potentially  Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Hungarian and Slovene, speaking soldiers all in the same unit without interpreters is the norm, not the exception.

I'm sorry but I don't know of anyone who knows all nineteen languages. Currency is an easily understandable language. It's numeric with two symbols. Simple math. What is your view of a united armed force Denoir? Multi-lingual CO's and thats it? Thats still divides soldiers from their counterparts from other regions of Europe doesn't it. To rectify the problem, an official language of the EU Armed forced would need to be established wouldn't it?

I read somewhere that 33% of all Europeans know English as a

second language to their native tounge, suprising actually. But would this go down well with all Europeans joining the United Army? I don't know. But a common language is a necessity for a smooth running Armed Force.

Quote[/b] ]Decisions of what the military does is made by the politicians.

Of course, but the democratic process will always allow for opposition to involvement in any armed conflict wouldn't it. The attitude of one nations leading party towards a military conflict might be completely different to another nations attitude. This potentially leads to division in the union and isolisation of that nation, and the United EU Army is no longer really united. It almost needs imaginative thinking to come up with potential scenarios for which division would be there.

Quote[/b] ]The EU is a political union designed to unify European political and economic agendas.

A nations willingness to risk it's soldiers is variable across the world and for Europe, it would be just the same. Variable. From Nation to Nation......... EU politcian to EU politician.

Quote[/b] ]A common military is actually a much smaller step than a common currency. And we did that in 10 years. A military cooperation is the natural next step.

To complete a common military would take a lot longer than 10 years. When someone says unified army, I think: everyone has the same vehicles, technology and weaponry, upgrades equiptment at the same rate as each other and has a proportion of militay contracts depending on their expendeture. Is this not why France pulled out of the Eurofighter project and persued their Dassault Rafale because they wanted a larger percentage of the contracts available vs the percentage of the Eurofighter force to be built for french forces?

Quote[/b] ]There is no question about if it will be good for Europe. The politicians and the military agree that it will. All the European countries agree. A majority of Europeans support it.

I support it, it probably will go ahead, but it will be a rough road to travel, thats all.

[Grizzlie 0]

I'm afraid u r wrong that common currency is much more complicated thing that common military. For most ppl it is just army who stands for the bigges sign of independece (no matter they r right or no). And about peacekeeping missions - u r right, but only partially. In such missions u have choosen soldiers more-less "profi", and in armies based on conscription it is not easy to find alot of good soldiers. And if i remember well, in EU only UK army is profi.

U r talking of french-german brigade - it exists over 20 years if i remember well, and it is still only single brigade. It is still more experiment than routine.

And hmm, would it be only UE army or national armies too?

Or just we say all armies of UE r UE army?

[GoOB 0]

This is the downside of democracy. People that havn't got the slightest clue or interest get a vote. Ask anybody that has participated in an international military mission and they'll all point out the benefits of a joint command.

Oh, so now you have to have combat experience to vote? A shame for those hippie "politicians" who smoke pot and vote for the heck of it.

And as far as my interest goes I don't want to see EU money being put in to military efforts. Since that is part of the money taken from our schools and our healthcare. The same way I don't want to see my savings being given away to corporate bigshots with the hots for green bills. And how on gods blue earth will having a common EU military benefit me? And what are the threats to me as a EUian if this apparent wet dream for KFOR soldiers doesn't come true?

Quote[/b] ] Slovenia is joining the EU now and Croatia will follow within a couple of years.

Doesn't that further the point that Europe is getting safer as more countries take the step into the warm embraces of the EU?

EDIT: Oh, and to get rid of the linguinal "problems" I suggest a EU language, to be studied by each child attending school from the third grade and up

[Tamme 0]

And how on gods blue earth will having a common EU military benefit me?

Tell me: How will having a common EU military harm you? It's not for you, it's not for me, but it's for us europeans as a whole. We need to stop thinking so selfishly and make some sacrifises, or otherwise we won't be getting anywhere.