21 ms·

Sigh. Can't blame them, but Europe needs an EU Army so working with the US is a matter of choice, not necessity.

xdennis 5y ago
> Europe needs an EU Army No. What we need is nukes. As we've seen many times so far, no country can be truly sovereign without nukes.
- sofixa 5y ago
  There are EU nukes in France, which aren't under NATO command and control, and which the current and most likely future French President (who is really big on more autonomy and power and centralisation for the EU), Macron, has already said publicly he's willing to share the power and responsibility of the French nuclear deterrent with the EU.
1337shadow 5y ago
Right, and then, the EU needs new taxes.
cbg0 5y ago
Working together with the US will always be a necessity, as will working with other allies, no country can really handle these situations alone very well. We already have armies at the country level, plus NATO, creating an EU army seems like a way of saying "yeah this EU army here is totally different from NATO" which I doubt Russia will really be swayed by.
- radicalbyte 5y ago
  We need an EU strategic command - who can coordinate over the existing armies.
  - cbg0 5y ago
    So, sort of like NATO, but just at the EU level, right?
  - i_like_waiting 5y ago
    No, we don't want that over here. I prefer to have US troops here than troops who are paid/ controlled by Brussel politicians that are disconnected from reality.
    - oblio 5y ago
      The US is 1 turn away from total disconnection. Their economy is less linked to the global economy than almost any other big economy, they definitely have enough resources to sustain themselves and Americans in general are becoming more inward focused.
      - adventured 5y ago
        It would take a lot more than that. There's very little support on either side politically for leaving NATO for example, which is why even Trump didn't push for it. The US could modestly reduce its global military footprint, and refocus those resources better on Europe (Russia) and Asia (China), and that would probably work out just fine. Most Americans like their big military, even though they gripe about its cost. If there were a strong majority sentiment to reduce that military or pull out of the world, Trump would have done better against Biden. Americans are tired of the stupid shit - invading & occupying Iraq; invading and occupying Afghanistan (occupying it for two decades for nothing). That money we poured into nothingness in Afghanistan, could have plausibly done wonders for Ukraine in numerous ways. Our attention and those resources would have been vastly better spent shoring up the new, fragile democracy in Ukraine than on an Afghanistan that was very unlikely to have a positive outcome. That isolationism lean, which is a modest minority group politically, will tend to come and go. It's amplified currently due to the stupidity of what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US also had some of that culturally after the disaster of Vietnam. Overall it's a good thing to have that minority isolationist political wing, it might help tilt the US toward not doing the next Iraq. Some counter-weight to our rah rah rah global adventurism is important.
        nebula8804 5y ago
        >Most Americans like their big military, even though they gripe about its cost. If there were a strong majority sentiment to reduce that military or pull out of the world, Trump would have done better against Biden. The 2020 election was a referendum on COVID so it is not a fair comparison. Trump was on track to defeat Biden before COVID hit and he totally bungled the response. In addition to that Trump increased his turnout significantly (as did Biden but I attribute that to COVID and hatred of Trump's personality). If another well mannered populist comes along during non pandemic times, I fully believe he/she would mop the floor with the establishment. Trump laid out the map for a path to break through establishment stranglehold on the white house. Its unfortunate that Bernie couldn't get past the DNC's attempts to pull the rug from under him but Trump showed that the Republican party does not have as many roadblocks so you cannot be as dismissive of populists as you are given the facts on the ground.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  Of course allies are necessary, but which allies and how many is the question. It depends on the situation. You shouldn't need the US for a mere deterring garrison, only if there is actual fighting to be done. The EU has many more people than the US, and is still fairly wealthy on the main. If there is a relatively big EU military, we in the US have a chance of reforming and shrinking our monster. The point of an EU army is not to appease Russia --- that indeed wouldn't work. The point is to give Europe some real sovereignty whereas today it has a hugely captive foreign policy.
  - long_time_gone 5y ago
    > If there is a relatively big EU military, we in the US have a chance of reforming and shrinking our monster. Our military's size and capabilities seem to be more a function of job-creation, rather than actual military need.
    - Ericson2314 5y ago
      Agreed a bit, there is definitely elements of instutitional self preservation for its own sake. And certainly the defense contractors are scared to have less of their main client. But getting rid of this "world police" "free world" bullshit will still help a lot. Consider, right now the US military budget is bound to balloon some more because of this war, without us doing any fighting. Military Keynesianism --- chest puffing handshake. Finally, if are allies can defend themselves, they will have more spine to call out our bullshit with things like Iraq.
      - long_time_gone 5y ago
        > Consider, right now the US military budget is bound to balloon some more because of this war, without us doing any fighting. Military Keynesianism --- chest puffing handshake. We are sending actual weapons and machinery, which need to be replaced by new weapons off the factory line. One Javelin missile costs $175k. "In less than a week, the United States and NATO have pushed more than 17,000 antitank weapons, including Javelin missiles, over the borders of Poland and Romania, unloading them from giant military cargo planes so they can make the trip by land to Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, and other major cities." https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/06/us/politics/us-ukraine-weapons.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/06/us/politics/us-ukraine-we...
- rhexs 5y ago
  Of course no country (aside from the US or China) can handle this alone, but that’s the point of the EU, a collection of countries. They’d much rather have America sink into debt than touch the sacred cow of EU social spending.
  - cbg0 5y ago
    > They’d much rather have America sink into debt than touch the sacred cow of EU social spending. Didn't Germany, Denmark, Romania, Austria (and possibly others I'm forgetting) already announce increases in military spending?
    - omginternets 5y ago
      The trend is very much in the opposite direction. This is a tiny blip on the radar compared to the overall trend of defunding and downsizing European militaries.
      - svara 5y ago
        You're right looking back, but this might just be the turning point. The German chancellor just announced an increase of military spending to exceed 2% of annual GDP, as requested by NATO allies for a very long time; to supply weapons to Ukraine; and to support the EU buying weapons for Ukraine. As a German, each one of those points is really far out of what used to be the political mainstream for many, many decades, and has broad support. It feels like things really are shifting.
        omginternets 5y ago
        Yes, and comparable announcements have happened before. They have never lasted very long. Things might be changing, but they also might not. You're just making a proclamation of faith, here.
    - causi 5y ago
      Yes, they increased from "hiring enough people to give Putin directions on the way to Berlin" to "way smaller than you'd expect with a lunatic next door". Germany announced an increase to 2% of GDP. For the three decades prior to the fall of the Soviet Union it averaged 3.5%.
- omginternets 5y ago
  >We already have armies at the country level I say the following as a former officer in the French army, which I'm sure you'll agree is one of the more active armies in the EU. We nominally have country-level armies. Their funding is consistently reduced and their numbers regularly downsized, and this trend exists across Europe. One might nitpick by pointing to specific budget increases, but the trend is undeniable if you look at it on any reasonable time-scale. I can think of no European country that has an autonomous standing army, capable of deploying itself to the theater of operations, resupplying and sustaining combat efforts without the support of US logistics. To point at the mere existence of national armies is to play word games. The EU members have outsourced their defense to the United States, and are now paying the price. EDIT: to be clear, I am quite skeptical of an EU strategic command.
  - pasabagi 5y ago
    The reason is simple: you need extensive logistics support for expeditionary warfare. European states are not really structurally placed to engage in this kind of thing: ever since the Suez crisis, it's been obvious that we basically live in an US world order, and doing expeditionary stuff without the American's say-so is a bad idea. So, since you're going to need American permission anyway, you may as well plan on relying on their capabilities.
    - omginternets 5y ago
      Ignoring the fact that the Suez crisis was largely a turning point for the English, your argument is circular. The entire point is that we need to re-invest in these capabilities to some degree.
      - pasabagi 5y ago
        > your argument is circular. How so? The Suez invasion didn't fail because the British (or the French) didn't have the logistics to supply their forces. It failed because the US wasn't OK with it happening. The point is, France could build whatever expeditionary force it could fit within its national budget, and it would still be completely useless for national strategic interests, because you could only really use it if the Americans agree you could use it. Thus, it would just end up doing stuff that fits in with American strategic imperatives.
- pphysch 5y ago
  NATO goes way beyond "working together with allies".
- usrusr 5y ago
  Some countries are so small it might just as well be "we already have armies, at county level". Apparently, these days EU actually needs something like Force de Frappe second strike capabilities. What a sad time.
- michaelt 5y ago
  The chances of a war between Europe and Russia without American involvement do indeed seem very remote. But some would say at present, the EU is the junior power in the EU-USA military relationship, despite its greater GDP; and that it's embarrassing we can't do our fair share. And America is a democracy - so at any time they could elect someone who puts America first and doesn't value an alliance with a bunch of weak, argumentative allies. Or someone with an appetite for spreading freedom abroad, who resents their allies not being at their side.
  - criley2 5y ago
    For the record, the combined E.U. GDP in 2021 was $17.1 trillion USD, while the U.S. GDP in 2021 was $20.94 trillion USD. Even so, U.S. military spending is $768 billion or ~3.7% of GDP, while E.U. spending was around $220 billion in 2020, or about ~1.5%.
    - michaelt 5y ago
      You're right, I was thinking of pre-Brexit EU GDP figures.
  - nebula8804 5y ago
    >And America is a democracy - so at any time they could elect someone who puts America first and doesn't value an alliance with a bunch of weak, argumentative allies. This will not happen at least until the baby boomer generation dies off. In the last election we saw clear as day how suppressed any candidate outside the mainstream really is. (Not talking about Trump but Sanders). I believe there is a large population of pissed off Americans that want to end this arrangement but they are not going to be able to exert their power until the generation that greatly benefited from the US being world police finally kicks the bucket.
thatjoeoverthr 5y ago
EU army is scope creep and redundant. The EU does not need to be a military organization.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  So you want the EU to be a US satellite for ever? There is no sovereignty without some ability to defend oneself on ones own. And personally, I think a major problem with the EU is too much intergovernmentalism, and not enough direct EU parliament power. Putting a military under their control can help that. "We don't need a Military" is the same happy go lucky thinking as "we'll just close all the nukes, do more renewables, and worry about storage later". It's just blatantly irresponsible, and undermines genuinely good things (less war, more renewables) into mere virtue signalling.
  - ardit33 5y ago
    Lets be honest, the US is much more proactive at defending. Look at Germany, how reluctant was to even start doing sanctions or distribute arms. The eastern countries see this, and they just don't trust Germany will have their back. Same with France or Spain or Italy. Also, the Bosnia war/genocide, and the late intervention is a clear failure of European policy. The US had to step in to make it stop. Same during the Kosova ethnic cleansing. The Eastern Block members know their only single reliable partner is the US and not the other large EU members who are always late to do anything.
  - i_like_waiting 5y ago
    >not enough direct EU parliament power EU is economic union and should stay as such
    - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
      Why?
      - i_like_waiting 5y ago
ericmay 5y ago
In my view the only benefit to an EU Army would be as a way to demilitarize EU member states so that they can't start a war with one another as they no longer have a military to directly control. Recreating NATO (and dissolving decades of institutional investment) and calling it the EU Army and then excluding the United States from backing you up just does not seem like a smart idea. Partnering with the U.S. is a good and desirable thing and is always a matter of choice. It just sometimes seems like it's not a choice because scenarios in which you are not choosing the United States are almost non-existent.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- glogla 5y ago
  In War NATO makes sense as command structure. But I can imagine "EU Army" structure for things like equipment procurement, trainings and so on for the economies of scale and better alignment. It makes little sense for small EU countries to do that by themselves, when the whole of Slovakia will have like 6 fighter planes and 20 IFVs. At the same time, procurement is pretty political, since many countries are deep in weapons trade, so maybe it wouldn't work.
  - jupp0r 5y ago
    It would also be a path for abysmally inefficient defense departments like Germany's to make sweeping changes while still keeping face.
    - adwn 5y ago
      Maybe we could get rid of the Gorch Fock [1] while we're at it. A sailing ship in the 21st century, causing repair costs well in excess of 100 million EUR, and killing sailors in training. JFC. A lot of people had to pay a lot of taxes to finance that shitty exercise in futility. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_training_ship_Gorch_Fock_(1958) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_training_ship_Gorch_Foc...
gumby 5y ago
Given the past history of the continent, the best thing about NATO is that European countries decided to just let the US do all the spending and stopped funding their own militaries. And as a consequence haven't invaded each other until recently, a massive change in European practice for at least the previous millennium.
- catchclose8919 5y ago
  > Given the past history of the continent Europe's past history of war and military technology is what allowed it to advance faster up to the point of industrial revolution and then to colonize most of the world... Europe needs conflict to thrive, but as an European I'd prefer this conflict to be external to Europe. An EU Army would at the same time make internal conflict exceedingly unlikely (no/impotent national armies, all resources dedicated to EU Army), and allow Europe to start re-involving itself productively in external conflicts. A de-militarized Europe is a castrated Europe, doomed to lag behind and wither away.
  - michaelt 5y ago
    > Europe needs conflict to thrive, but as an European I'd prefer this conflict to be external to Europe. Eh, I'm not sure you get the tech benefits of a war when it's a foreign war of choice. I mean, WW2 coincided with computers, radar, rocketry, modern control theory, jet engines, and so on because in an existential war you throw everything you've got into winning it. But you look at wars of choice, like Iraq? All that came out of it was moderate upgrades to prosthetic limbs and drones. The major innovations of the period, like smartphones and cloud services, were unrelated to the wars.
    - machiaweliczny 5y ago
      The self driving cars, IT infra, logistics, social media, robots and rockets are all related to military needs and funding. The whole investment in computers is so bombs can be more precise.
      - 5y ago
yeahsure8 5y ago
catchclose8919 5y ago
Let's stop beating the bush and say it as it is: there's no "real" EU without an EU Army! ...regardless of what the US does or doesn't do. NATO serves a different purpose. If we ever want to get close to the dream of an European Federation we need to get the Army done. Then maybe some EU equivalent of the FBI (no Interpol doesn't cut it, something with trained men with guns and bugs and all, and EU only). Even a possible future improvement of the relationships between Europe and Russia is contingent on this: we need to be able to talk with Russia without the US sitting at the table, and to have the option to also act against the interests of the US. Which, frankly, don't really coincide that much with that of Europe anymore.
- lil_cain 5y ago
  >If we ever want to get close to the dream of an European Federation we need to get the Army done. If we want an EU army, we need a single EU foreign policy first. Otherwise who decides when to use it? And if we have a single EU foreign policy, how do we deal with NATO? Do state that are non-aligned just have to suck it up? How do we deal with France's military adventures in Africa? Do the countries that object to them have to suck it up and Françafrique quickly collapse? What's the EU position on the Carlingford Lough Dispute? Is Imia in Greece, or not? > Then maybe some EU equivalent of the FBI (no Interpol doesn't cut it, something with trained men with guns and bugs and all, and EU only). This bit is ongoing; The European Public Prosecutor is the first step in this, and frontex are already armed. Note that despite the EU having armed forces, the oversight mechanisms for them are, so far, atrocious. Perhaps we should fix those before expanding to an army? > Even a possible future improvement of the relationships between Europe and Russia is contingent on this: we need to be able to talk with Russia without the US sitting at the table, and to have the option to also act against the interests of the US. Which, frankly, don't really coincide that much with that of Europe anymore. Do you have a course of action that you think we should be pursuing that we cannot currently? I can't think of one, but it may exist. And if you do, is it one that would command support in all EU states, or is the first step getting foreign policy to move to QMV? And if that's the case, how do you plan to win a referendum in Ireland to (effectively) abolish Irish neutrality?
  - 5y ago
mmoskal 5y ago
After brexit EU countries account for 20% of NATO military spending [0]. Granted, it might have increased a bit lately but still it would seem EU army would be a joke compared to NATO. [0] https://www.economist.com/special-report/2019/03/14/what-would-happen-if-america-left-europe-to-fend-for-itself https://www.economist.com/special-report/2019/03/14/what-wou...
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Can't blame them, but Europe needs an EU Army so working with the US is a matter of choice, not necessity. reply Unless the EU gets a tier one strategic nuclear power as a member (which, short of radical regime change in Russia, a radical expansion of the EU’s geographic focus, or the emergence of a new major nuclear power doesn't seem likely), the motivation for wanting a permanent US tripwire force doesn't go away with an EU army.
- YawningAngel 5y ago
  What discounts the UK and France?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    Insufficient operational warhead count (and size; how much you can take is an issue here) for MAD against Russia, leading to an insufficient guarantee that their tripwire forces would provide sufficient certainty of an immediate unacceptable conflict.
    - empressplay 5y ago
      You do know that Putin's bluster notwithstanding, MAD only applies to nuclear conflicts? EG Russia can march into Poland and that doesn't instantly 'trip' MAD.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > You do know that Putin's bluster notwithstanding, MAD only applies to nuclear conflicts? This is inaccurate. MAD applies with progressively decreasing strength to: (1) Nuclear conflicts, (2) direct conflicts between nuclear powers, (3) direct conflicts between a nuclear power and the powers with which a nuclear power has a firm defense commitment, (4) direct conflicts between parties where a different nuclear power has firm defense commitments to each, ... (there are more categories where it has some attenuated impact, but it gets pretty weak beyond this point and the heirarchy becomes murkier) Tripwire forces are a means of moving category #3 into category #2 as a means of deterring them (also, #4 into #3, which is sometimes also of perceived importance.) The whole WWIII argument against NFZ in Ukraine is that it elevates a conflict that is not on this chart at all straight to a #2. If you think MAD applies only to nuclear conflicts, you don't understand the role of MAD.in deterrence very well.
dotancohen 5y ago
What would be the purpose of an EU army? The defensive roles of the army are (broadly) to protect the sovereignty of the government, and to protect the borders. Though most European borders are accepted by the governments controlling both sides of them, the sovereignty of the governments is far from assured. Every generation, heck every decade, sees new challenges, new techniques to subvert and undermine, and new foreign political change campaigns. The army protects against that. Broadly. If you're thinking about an EU army being used to defend non-US nations (e.g. Ukraine) then I beg you to consider that the purpose of the army is to defend the nation. An army that puts its nation at risk by going out and protecting others is actually harming the nation. Even if the US likes to do it, but the US can afford to do it because it has two nice big oceans buffering it from aggression.
watwut 5y ago
NATO countries exchange soldiers, so that attack on one country is attack on the other country too. So, yes, you are right. And they will want American soldiers still in, so that attack on Latvia is attack on American soldiers.
slibhb 5y ago
An "EU army" seems silly. People aren't willing to fight and die for the EU, not in large numbers. For better or worse, European identity is receding. It peaked in the 90s. European countries should spend more on their respective militaries though (I notice this sounds suspiciously like things Trump said).
- phatfish 5y ago
  Well, it depends who you are at war with. If Russia was rolling tanks through (more of) eastern Europe WW2 style then just out of self preservation other EU countries would want to commit forces to defend against that. Helping France keep control in Africa somewhere I can see there being less enthusiasm. Also, I'm not so sure European identity is receding anymore, although that narrative is of benefit to other large powers.
- sb057 5y ago
  >People aren't willing to fight and die for the EU, not in large numbers. As has been the case for the vast majority of wars throughout human history.
- DaedPsyker 5y ago
  To me this reads like an argument centered on an idealised national soldier. People join the military for multitude of reasons, including just to have a job that isn't working a till. No one is joining the French Foreign Legion to die for France, no one joins a mercenary company to die for stock holders. It's a job, yes for some it's a pure calling but often more than not, it's a place to work and pick up new skills.
jollybean 5y ago
An EU Army cannot be in the cards no matter what politicians say because anyone suggesting it might not quite understand so much 'why people fight'. Some kind of Military EU coordination of forces, yes, but 'EU Army' - no. Almost nobody is going to fight for the EU flag. Also, nations want to maintain some kind of control over things like 'Intervention in Libya'. But - we already have defence, it's called NATO, and it includes Norway, the UK and the USA. Even with an 'EU Army of Sorts' - there is no clear leadership. Germany has the political and economic power, but little in the way of forces. France is probably the most prepared but are still small. Absent the UK which would probably be a helpful leader ... there's not much there. In the end, NATO is well designed for that, it includes the US which is important for now. It will take a decade at least for EU to sort itself out in that area and it may never happen. It also does not need to happen.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  EU will fail sooner or later if they don't do EU army. Yes, the moral around European integration has fallen, and so the long slow failure of the EU could already be "locked in". As for clear leadership, it must be the EU parliament. You cannot put a military under inter-governmental control. Which is good, as inter-governmentalism is bad in general.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    The EU does not 'need' an Army. They have constituent national Armies which are just fine for self defence. Even without the US, Europe could probably not be held by Russians. Probably the greatest challenge is not invading each other but hopefully that era is over. "As for clear leadership, it must be the EU parliament." This is a misunderstanding of how leadership works. 'Parliament' cannot provide real military leadership. The EU Parliament above all, is an effete bureaucracy incapable of 'doing' most things. Yes - of course the political body must be responsible and direct the military objectives etc., there is no doubt there, but that is not nearly enough. There needs to be a very well organised and experienced body military personnel who can basically form the basis of leadership, and it needs to be effective. The US has that, the UK and France have that at least at some scale. If the EU said 'we're going to have an Army and pool all of our budget' and then every soldier, officer and seaman were under this 'single integrated unit' - instead of national Armies - and - if it was well managed and coordinated, then sure, that would be a path. But it won't happen for so many reasons. And especially, it doesn't' need to. Most EU citizens do not want a Federal State let alone 'more integration', most efforts for rather integration are driven by EU elite, and young ideologues who also don't really understand the nature of what is going on. What is possibly in the cards, is an EU-like NATO, i.e. a more comprehensive EU defence organization. But as long as NATO exists and is functional, wise Europeans may prefer to have the USA 'on board' because they are 3x more powerful when the US is involved, at least for now. And European nations right now are 'taking up the slack' and investing more heavily, Poland, Germany, Sweden etc. are really stepping up.
bigodbiel 5y ago
Europe would hugely benefit from an united, concise and strong foreign policy, more so if backed by a strong military. Plus, the added GDP boost from military expenditure.
piokoch 5y ago
EU does not have a great track in terms providing security for its members. Nord Stream was pushed by Germany even though it was obvious that this would make Germany depended on Russian gas. Germany killed the plan of common European gas purchase from diversified sources - they wanted to buy it alone, to sell it further and get even more economical advantage over other EU countries (because, unless you don't know, gas from Russia is a green energy, CO2 free). That's why Germany to the very last moment was opposing arms sale for Ukraine and until the 3rd day of the Russian invasion on Ukraine was opposing sanctions. Blinken was not getting off his plane for good three weeks while traveling to convince European partners from Italy, Germany, France, Hungary that Russia is a real danger and has to be stopped. Long time has to pass before Germany will be consider to be a trusted partner, their silent support for Russia was clear not only to Poland or Baltic countries - Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Romania, Moldavia, they all have seen what is happening and will think twice before trusting Germany. Nobody sane will undermine the role of NATO and USA/UK when it comes to European security, over my head I see US and UK spy planes and drones that are flying all days and nights over eastern Poland, providing intel for Ukrainian forces. No country in Europe is capable of pursuing large military operation, France stumbled over their own feet when trying to change ruler in Libya several years ago and France has the best army in continental Europe. Go figure that! They needed US support at the end. Another big problem is the pathetic state of German army, especially heavy component, luckily they have just decided to put significant amount of money on making Bundeswehr a real force since right now with its 300 tanks (three times less than Poland) it is a sad joke.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  Yeah but I think the lack of an army supports this behavior. If German gas emboldens Russia, it should be German boys dying if Latvia is invaded.
  - gytdev 5y ago
    don't play the blame game. If Latvia is invaded, all boys from NATO should come to play
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
voldacar 5y ago
The EU couldn't sustain the level of proportional military spending that the USA does, maybe with the exception of Germany but they still spend around half as much as a share of gdp as the US does, so that would be an enormous shift. Fwiw, the existence of the EU basically presupposes the availability of the American army to provide security
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  Spending creates real capacity. What you are saying sounds like common census, but is actually tail-wags-dog backwards.
yrgulation 5y ago
Europe may need an army, but many in Europe prefer US leadership. Some of us don't really want to give into german dominance in that area as well as the EU. If it weren't for the US and UK pushing for sanctions against russia, certain countries would still happily trade with putin while he's invading european sovereign states.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  Germany dominance is the worst. EU parliament control and not some intergovernmental bullshit is the only way to make this happen, and a good reform either way.
  - yrgulation 5y ago
    I know. Just today germany announced it will continue buying russian gas. They don't mind putin bombing ukraine or dirty oligarch money. Instead they will sanction Poland or other EU countries as soon as they are out of "line". A sad state of affairs in europe, and I don't see how reform can happen while the EU is also under its control.
ironcurtain 5y ago
NATO was created to keep US in, Germany down and Russia out. EU army would never work, unless it’s just a job program for underprivileged youths.

> Europe needs an EU Army No. What we need is nukes. As we've seen many times so far, no country can be truly sovereign without nukes.

sofixa 5y ago
There are EU nukes in France, which aren't under NATO command and control, and which the current and most likely future French President (who is really big on more autonomy and power and centralisation for the EU), Macron, has already said publicly he's willing to share the power and responsibility of the French nuclear deterrent with the EU.

1337shadow 5y ago

Right, and then, the EU needs new taxes.

cbg0 5y ago

Working together with the US will always be a necessity, as will working with other allies, no country can really handle these situations alone very well. We already have armies at the country level, plus NATO, creating an EU army seems like a way of saying "yeah this EU army here is totally different from NATO" which I doubt Russia will really be swayed by.

radicalbyte 5y ago
We need an EU strategic command - who can coordinate over the existing armies.
- cbg0 5y ago
  So, sort of like NATO, but just at the EU level, right?
- i_like_waiting 5y ago
  No, we don't want that over here. I prefer to have US troops here than troops who are paid/ controlled by Brussel politicians that are disconnected from reality.
  - oblio 5y ago
    The US is 1 turn away from total disconnection. Their economy is less linked to the global economy than almost any other big economy, they definitely have enough resources to sustain themselves and Americans in general are becoming more inward focused.
    - adventured 5y ago
      It would take a lot more than that. There's very little support on either side politically for leaving NATO for example, which is why even Trump didn't push for it. The US could modestly reduce its global military footprint, and refocus those resources better on Europe (Russia) and Asia (China), and that would probably work out just fine. Most Americans like their big military, even though they gripe about its cost. If there were a strong majority sentiment to reduce that military or pull out of the world, Trump would have done better against Biden. Americans are tired of the stupid shit - invading & occupying Iraq; invading and occupying Afghanistan (occupying it for two decades for nothing). That money we poured into nothingness in Afghanistan, could have plausibly done wonders for Ukraine in numerous ways. Our attention and those resources would have been vastly better spent shoring up the new, fragile democracy in Ukraine than on an Afghanistan that was very unlikely to have a positive outcome. That isolationism lean, which is a modest minority group politically, will tend to come and go. It's amplified currently due to the stupidity of what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US also had some of that culturally after the disaster of Vietnam. Overall it's a good thing to have that minority isolationist political wing, it might help tilt the US toward not doing the next Iraq. Some counter-weight to our rah rah rah global adventurism is important.
      - nebula8804 5y ago
        >Most Americans like their big military, even though they gripe about its cost. If there were a strong majority sentiment to reduce that military or pull out of the world, Trump would have done better against Biden. The 2020 election was a referendum on COVID so it is not a fair comparison. Trump was on track to defeat Biden before COVID hit and he totally bungled the response. In addition to that Trump increased his turnout significantly (as did Biden but I attribute that to COVID and hatred of Trump's personality). If another well mannered populist comes along during non pandemic times, I fully believe he/she would mop the floor with the establishment. Trump laid out the map for a path to break through establishment stranglehold on the white house. Its unfortunate that Bernie couldn't get past the DNC's attempts to pull the rug from under him but Trump showed that the Republican party does not have as many roadblocks so you cannot be as dismissive of populists as you are given the facts on the ground.
Ericson2314 5y ago
Of course allies are necessary, but which allies and how many is the question. It depends on the situation. You shouldn't need the US for a mere deterring garrison, only if there is actual fighting to be done. The EU has many more people than the US, and is still fairly wealthy on the main. If there is a relatively big EU military, we in the US have a chance of reforming and shrinking our monster. The point of an EU army is not to appease Russia --- that indeed wouldn't work. The point is to give Europe some real sovereignty whereas today it has a hugely captive foreign policy.
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  > If there is a relatively big EU military, we in the US have a chance of reforming and shrinking our monster. Our military's size and capabilities seem to be more a function of job-creation, rather than actual military need.
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    Agreed a bit, there is definitely elements of instutitional self preservation for its own sake. And certainly the defense contractors are scared to have less of their main client. But getting rid of this "world police" "free world" bullshit will still help a lot. Consider, right now the US military budget is bound to balloon some more because of this war, without us doing any fighting. Military Keynesianism --- chest puffing handshake. Finally, if are allies can defend themselves, they will have more spine to call out our bullshit with things like Iraq.
    - long_time_gone 5y ago
      > Consider, right now the US military budget is bound to balloon some more because of this war, without us doing any fighting. Military Keynesianism --- chest puffing handshake. We are sending actual weapons and machinery, which need to be replaced by new weapons off the factory line. One Javelin missile costs $175k. "In less than a week, the United States and NATO have pushed more than 17,000 antitank weapons, including Javelin missiles, over the borders of Poland and Romania, unloading them from giant military cargo planes so they can make the trip by land to Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, and other major cities." https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/06/us/politics/us-ukraine-weapons.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/06/us/politics/us-ukraine-we...
rhexs 5y ago
Of course no country (aside from the US or China) can handle this alone, but that’s the point of the EU, a collection of countries. They’d much rather have America sink into debt than touch the sacred cow of EU social spending.
- cbg0 5y ago
  > They’d much rather have America sink into debt than touch the sacred cow of EU social spending. Didn't Germany, Denmark, Romania, Austria (and possibly others I'm forgetting) already announce increases in military spending?
  - omginternets 5y ago
    The trend is very much in the opposite direction. This is a tiny blip on the radar compared to the overall trend of defunding and downsizing European militaries.
    - svara 5y ago
      You're right looking back, but this might just be the turning point. The German chancellor just announced an increase of military spending to exceed 2% of annual GDP, as requested by NATO allies for a very long time; to supply weapons to Ukraine; and to support the EU buying weapons for Ukraine. As a German, each one of those points is really far out of what used to be the political mainstream for many, many decades, and has broad support. It feels like things really are shifting.
      - omginternets 5y ago
        Yes, and comparable announcements have happened before. They have never lasted very long. Things might be changing, but they also might not. You're just making a proclamation of faith, here.
  - causi 5y ago
    Yes, they increased from "hiring enough people to give Putin directions on the way to Berlin" to "way smaller than you'd expect with a lunatic next door". Germany announced an increase to 2% of GDP. For the three decades prior to the fall of the Soviet Union it averaged 3.5%.
omginternets 5y ago
>We already have armies at the country level I say the following as a former officer in the French army, which I'm sure you'll agree is one of the more active armies in the EU. We nominally have country-level armies. Their funding is consistently reduced and their numbers regularly downsized, and this trend exists across Europe. One might nitpick by pointing to specific budget increases, but the trend is undeniable if you look at it on any reasonable time-scale. I can think of no European country that has an autonomous standing army, capable of deploying itself to the theater of operations, resupplying and sustaining combat efforts without the support of US logistics. To point at the mere existence of national armies is to play word games. The EU members have outsourced their defense to the United States, and are now paying the price. EDIT: to be clear, I am quite skeptical of an EU strategic command.
- pasabagi 5y ago
  The reason is simple: you need extensive logistics support for expeditionary warfare. European states are not really structurally placed to engage in this kind of thing: ever since the Suez crisis, it's been obvious that we basically live in an US world order, and doing expeditionary stuff without the American's say-so is a bad idea. So, since you're going to need American permission anyway, you may as well plan on relying on their capabilities.
  - omginternets 5y ago
    Ignoring the fact that the Suez crisis was largely a turning point for the English, your argument is circular. The entire point is that we need to re-invest in these capabilities to some degree.
    - pasabagi 5y ago
      > your argument is circular. How so? The Suez invasion didn't fail because the British (or the French) didn't have the logistics to supply their forces. It failed because the US wasn't OK with it happening. The point is, France could build whatever expeditionary force it could fit within its national budget, and it would still be completely useless for national strategic interests, because you could only really use it if the Americans agree you could use it. Thus, it would just end up doing stuff that fits in with American strategic imperatives.
pphysch 5y ago
NATO goes way beyond "working together with allies".
usrusr 5y ago
Some countries are so small it might just as well be "we already have armies, at county level". Apparently, these days EU actually needs something like Force de Frappe second strike capabilities. What a sad time.
michaelt 5y ago
The chances of a war between Europe and Russia without American involvement do indeed seem very remote. But some would say at present, the EU is the junior power in the EU-USA military relationship, despite its greater GDP; and that it's embarrassing we can't do our fair share. And America is a democracy - so at any time they could elect someone who puts America first and doesn't value an alliance with a bunch of weak, argumentative allies. Or someone with an appetite for spreading freedom abroad, who resents their allies not being at their side.
- criley2 5y ago
  For the record, the combined E.U. GDP in 2021 was $17.1 trillion USD, while the U.S. GDP in 2021 was $20.94 trillion USD. Even so, U.S. military spending is $768 billion or ~3.7% of GDP, while E.U. spending was around $220 billion in 2020, or about ~1.5%.
  - michaelt 5y ago
    You're right, I was thinking of pre-Brexit EU GDP figures.
- nebula8804 5y ago
  >And America is a democracy - so at any time they could elect someone who puts America first and doesn't value an alliance with a bunch of weak, argumentative allies. This will not happen at least until the baby boomer generation dies off. In the last election we saw clear as day how suppressed any candidate outside the mainstream really is. (Not talking about Trump but Sanders). I believe there is a large population of pissed off Americans that want to end this arrangement but they are not going to be able to exert their power until the generation that greatly benefited from the US being world police finally kicks the bucket.

thatjoeoverthr 5y ago

EU army is scope creep and redundant. The EU does not need to be a military organization.

Ericson2314 5y ago
So you want the EU to be a US satellite for ever? There is no sovereignty without some ability to defend oneself on ones own. And personally, I think a major problem with the EU is too much intergovernmentalism, and not enough direct EU parliament power. Putting a military under their control can help that. "We don't need a Military" is the same happy go lucky thinking as "we'll just close all the nukes, do more renewables, and worry about storage later". It's just blatantly irresponsible, and undermines genuinely good things (less war, more renewables) into mere virtue signalling.
- ardit33 5y ago
  Lets be honest, the US is much more proactive at defending. Look at Germany, how reluctant was to even start doing sanctions or distribute arms. The eastern countries see this, and they just don't trust Germany will have their back. Same with France or Spain or Italy. Also, the Bosnia war/genocide, and the late intervention is a clear failure of European policy. The US had to step in to make it stop. Same during the Kosova ethnic cleansing. The Eastern Block members know their only single reliable partner is the US and not the other large EU members who are always late to do anything.
- i_like_waiting 5y ago
  >not enough direct EU parliament power EU is economic union and should stay as such
  - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
    Why?
    - i_like_waiting 5y ago

ericmay 5y ago

In my view the only benefit to an EU Army would be as a way to demilitarize EU member states so that they can't start a war with one another as they no longer have a military to directly control. Recreating NATO (and dissolving decades of institutional investment) and calling it the EU Army and then excluding the United States from backing you up just does not seem like a smart idea. Partnering with the U.S. is a good and desirable thing and is always a matter of choice. It just sometimes seems like it's not a choice because scenarios in which you are not choosing the United States are almost non-existent.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
glogla 5y ago
In War NATO makes sense as command structure. But I can imagine "EU Army" structure for things like equipment procurement, trainings and so on for the economies of scale and better alignment. It makes little sense for small EU countries to do that by themselves, when the whole of Slovakia will have like 6 fighter planes and 20 IFVs. At the same time, procurement is pretty political, since many countries are deep in weapons trade, so maybe it wouldn't work.
- jupp0r 5y ago
  It would also be a path for abysmally inefficient defense departments like Germany's to make sweeping changes while still keeping face.
  - adwn 5y ago
    Maybe we could get rid of the Gorch Fock [1] while we're at it. A sailing ship in the 21st century, causing repair costs well in excess of 100 million EUR, and killing sailors in training. JFC. A lot of people had to pay a lot of taxes to finance that shitty exercise in futility. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_training_ship_Gorch_Fock_(1958) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_training_ship_Gorch_Foc...

gumby 5y ago

Given the past history of the continent, the best thing about NATO is that European countries decided to just let the US do all the spending and stopped funding their own militaries. And as a consequence haven't invaded each other until recently, a massive change in European practice for at least the previous millennium.

catchclose8919 5y ago
> Given the past history of the continent Europe's past history of war and military technology is what allowed it to advance faster up to the point of industrial revolution and then to colonize most of the world... Europe needs conflict to thrive, but as an European I'd prefer this conflict to be external to Europe. An EU Army would at the same time make internal conflict exceedingly unlikely (no/impotent national armies, all resources dedicated to EU Army), and allow Europe to start re-involving itself productively in external conflicts. A de-militarized Europe is a castrated Europe, doomed to lag behind and wither away.
- michaelt 5y ago
  > Europe needs conflict to thrive, but as an European I'd prefer this conflict to be external to Europe. Eh, I'm not sure you get the tech benefits of a war when it's a foreign war of choice. I mean, WW2 coincided with computers, radar, rocketry, modern control theory, jet engines, and so on because in an existential war you throw everything you've got into winning it. But you look at wars of choice, like Iraq? All that came out of it was moderate upgrades to prosthetic limbs and drones. The major innovations of the period, like smartphones and cloud services, were unrelated to the wars.
  - machiaweliczny 5y ago
    The self driving cars, IT infra, logistics, social media, robots and rockets are all related to military needs and funding. The whole investment in computers is so bombs can be more precise.
    - 5y ago

yeahsure8 5y ago

catchclose8919 5y ago

Let's stop beating the bush and say it as it is: there's no "real" EU without an EU Army! ...regardless of what the US does or doesn't do. NATO serves a different purpose. If we ever want to get close to the dream of an European Federation we need to get the Army done. Then maybe some EU equivalent of the FBI (no Interpol doesn't cut it, something with trained men with guns and bugs and all, and EU only). Even a possible future improvement of the relationships between Europe and Russia is contingent on this: we need to be able to talk with Russia without the US sitting at the table, and to have the option to also act against the interests of the US. Which, frankly, don't really coincide that much with that of Europe anymore.

lil_cain 5y ago
>If we ever want to get close to the dream of an European Federation we need to get the Army done. If we want an EU army, we need a single EU foreign policy first. Otherwise who decides when to use it? And if we have a single EU foreign policy, how do we deal with NATO? Do state that are non-aligned just have to suck it up? How do we deal with France's military adventures in Africa? Do the countries that object to them have to suck it up and Françafrique quickly collapse? What's the EU position on the Carlingford Lough Dispute? Is Imia in Greece, or not? > Then maybe some EU equivalent of the FBI (no Interpol doesn't cut it, something with trained men with guns and bugs and all, and EU only). This bit is ongoing; The European Public Prosecutor is the first step in this, and frontex are already armed. Note that despite the EU having armed forces, the oversight mechanisms for them are, so far, atrocious. Perhaps we should fix those before expanding to an army? > Even a possible future improvement of the relationships between Europe and Russia is contingent on this: we need to be able to talk with Russia without the US sitting at the table, and to have the option to also act against the interests of the US. Which, frankly, don't really coincide that much with that of Europe anymore. Do you have a course of action that you think we should be pursuing that we cannot currently? I can't think of one, but it may exist. And if you do, is it one that would command support in all EU states, or is the first step getting foreign policy to move to QMV? And if that's the case, how do you plan to win a referendum in Ireland to (effectively) abolish Irish neutrality?
- 5y ago

mmoskal 5y ago

After brexit EU countries account for 20% of NATO military spending [0]. Granted, it might have increased a bit lately but still it would seem EU army would be a joke compared to NATO. [0] https://www.economist.com/special-report/2019/03/14/what-would-happen-if-america-left-europe-to-fend-for-itself https://www.economist.com/special-report/2019/03/14/what-wou...

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Can't blame them, but Europe needs an EU Army so working with the US is a matter of choice, not necessity. reply Unless the EU gets a tier one strategic nuclear power as a member (which, short of radical regime change in Russia, a radical expansion of the EU’s geographic focus, or the emergence of a new major nuclear power doesn't seem likely), the motivation for wanting a permanent US tripwire force doesn't go away with an EU army.

YawningAngel 5y ago
What discounts the UK and France?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  Insufficient operational warhead count (and size; how much you can take is an issue here) for MAD against Russia, leading to an insufficient guarantee that their tripwire forces would provide sufficient certainty of an immediate unacceptable conflict.
  - empressplay 5y ago
    You do know that Putin's bluster notwithstanding, MAD only applies to nuclear conflicts? EG Russia can march into Poland and that doesn't instantly 'trip' MAD.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > You do know that Putin's bluster notwithstanding, MAD only applies to nuclear conflicts? This is inaccurate. MAD applies with progressively decreasing strength to: (1) Nuclear conflicts, (2) direct conflicts between nuclear powers, (3) direct conflicts between a nuclear power and the powers with which a nuclear power has a firm defense commitment, (4) direct conflicts between parties where a different nuclear power has firm defense commitments to each, ... (there are more categories where it has some attenuated impact, but it gets pretty weak beyond this point and the heirarchy becomes murkier) Tripwire forces are a means of moving category #3 into category #2 as a means of deterring them (also, #4 into #3, which is sometimes also of perceived importance.) The whole WWIII argument against NFZ in Ukraine is that it elevates a conflict that is not on this chart at all straight to a #2. If you think MAD applies only to nuclear conflicts, you don't understand the role of MAD.in deterrence very well.

dotancohen 5y ago

What would be the purpose of an EU army? The defensive roles of the army are (broadly) to protect the sovereignty of the government, and to protect the borders. Though most European borders are accepted by the governments controlling both sides of them, the sovereignty of the governments is far from assured. Every generation, heck every decade, sees new challenges, new techniques to subvert and undermine, and new foreign political change campaigns. The army protects against that. Broadly. If you're thinking about an EU army being used to defend non-US nations (e.g. Ukraine) then I beg you to consider that the purpose of the army is to defend the nation. An army that puts its nation at risk by going out and protecting others is actually harming the nation. Even if the US likes to do it, but the US can afford to do it because it has two nice big oceans buffering it from aggression.

watwut 5y ago

NATO countries exchange soldiers, so that attack on one country is attack on the other country too. So, yes, you are right. And they will want American soldiers still in, so that attack on Latvia is attack on American soldiers.

slibhb 5y ago

An "EU army" seems silly. People aren't willing to fight and die for the EU, not in large numbers. For better or worse, European identity is receding. It peaked in the 90s. European countries should spend more on their respective militaries though (I notice this sounds suspiciously like things Trump said).

phatfish 5y ago
Well, it depends who you are at war with. If Russia was rolling tanks through (more of) eastern Europe WW2 style then just out of self preservation other EU countries would want to commit forces to defend against that. Helping France keep control in Africa somewhere I can see there being less enthusiasm. Also, I'm not so sure European identity is receding anymore, although that narrative is of benefit to other large powers.
sb057 5y ago
>People aren't willing to fight and die for the EU, not in large numbers. As has been the case for the vast majority of wars throughout human history.
DaedPsyker 5y ago
To me this reads like an argument centered on an idealised national soldier. People join the military for multitude of reasons, including just to have a job that isn't working a till. No one is joining the French Foreign Legion to die for France, no one joins a mercenary company to die for stock holders. It's a job, yes for some it's a pure calling but often more than not, it's a place to work and pick up new skills.

jollybean 5y ago

An EU Army cannot be in the cards no matter what politicians say because anyone suggesting it might not quite understand so much 'why people fight'. Some kind of Military EU coordination of forces, yes, but 'EU Army' - no. Almost nobody is going to fight for the EU flag. Also, nations want to maintain some kind of control over things like 'Intervention in Libya'. But - we already have defence, it's called NATO, and it includes Norway, the UK and the USA. Even with an 'EU Army of Sorts' - there is no clear leadership. Germany has the political and economic power, but little in the way of forces. France is probably the most prepared but are still small. Absent the UK which would probably be a helpful leader ... there's not much there. In the end, NATO is well designed for that, it includes the US which is important for now. It will take a decade at least for EU to sort itself out in that area and it may never happen. It also does not need to happen.

Ericson2314 5y ago
EU will fail sooner or later if they don't do EU army. Yes, the moral around European integration has fallen, and so the long slow failure of the EU could already be "locked in". As for clear leadership, it must be the EU parliament. You cannot put a military under inter-governmental control. Which is good, as inter-governmentalism is bad in general.
- jollybean 5y ago
  The EU does not 'need' an Army. They have constituent national Armies which are just fine for self defence. Even without the US, Europe could probably not be held by Russians. Probably the greatest challenge is not invading each other but hopefully that era is over. "As for clear leadership, it must be the EU parliament." This is a misunderstanding of how leadership works. 'Parliament' cannot provide real military leadership. The EU Parliament above all, is an effete bureaucracy incapable of 'doing' most things. Yes - of course the political body must be responsible and direct the military objectives etc., there is no doubt there, but that is not nearly enough. There needs to be a very well organised and experienced body military personnel who can basically form the basis of leadership, and it needs to be effective. The US has that, the UK and France have that at least at some scale. If the EU said 'we're going to have an Army and pool all of our budget' and then every soldier, officer and seaman were under this 'single integrated unit' - instead of national Armies - and - if it was well managed and coordinated, then sure, that would be a path. But it won't happen for so many reasons. And especially, it doesn't' need to. Most EU citizens do not want a Federal State let alone 'more integration', most efforts for rather integration are driven by EU elite, and young ideologues who also don't really understand the nature of what is going on. What is possibly in the cards, is an EU-like NATO, i.e. a more comprehensive EU defence organization. But as long as NATO exists and is functional, wise Europeans may prefer to have the USA 'on board' because they are 3x more powerful when the US is involved, at least for now. And European nations right now are 'taking up the slack' and investing more heavily, Poland, Germany, Sweden etc. are really stepping up.

bigodbiel 5y ago

Europe would hugely benefit from an united, concise and strong foreign policy, more so if backed by a strong military. Plus, the added GDP boost from military expenditure.

piokoch 5y ago

EU does not have a great track in terms providing security for its members. Nord Stream was pushed by Germany even though it was obvious that this would make Germany depended on Russian gas. Germany killed the plan of common European gas purchase from diversified sources - they wanted to buy it alone, to sell it further and get even more economical advantage over other EU countries (because, unless you don't know, gas from Russia is a green energy, CO2 free). That's why Germany to the very last moment was opposing arms sale for Ukraine and until the 3rd day of the Russian invasion on Ukraine was opposing sanctions. Blinken was not getting off his plane for good three weeks while traveling to convince European partners from Italy, Germany, France, Hungary that Russia is a real danger and has to be stopped. Long time has to pass before Germany will be consider to be a trusted partner, their silent support for Russia was clear not only to Poland or Baltic countries - Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Romania, Moldavia, they all have seen what is happening and will think twice before trusting Germany. Nobody sane will undermine the role of NATO and USA/UK when it comes to European security, over my head I see US and UK spy planes and drones that are flying all days and nights over eastern Poland, providing intel for Ukrainian forces. No country in Europe is capable of pursuing large military operation, France stumbled over their own feet when trying to change ruler in Libya several years ago and France has the best army in continental Europe. Go figure that! They needed US support at the end. Another big problem is the pathetic state of German army, especially heavy component, luckily they have just decided to put significant amount of money on making Bundeswehr a real force since right now with its 300 tanks (three times less than Poland) it is a sad joke.

Ericson2314 5y ago
Yeah but I think the lack of an army supports this behavior. If German gas emboldens Russia, it should be German boys dying if Latvia is invaded.
- gytdev 5y ago
  don't play the blame game. If Latvia is invaded, all boys from NATO should come to play
KptMarchewa 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

voldacar 5y ago

The EU couldn't sustain the level of proportional military spending that the USA does, maybe with the exception of Germany but they still spend around half as much as a share of gdp as the US does, so that would be an enormous shift. Fwiw, the existence of the EU basically presupposes the availability of the American army to provide security

Ericson2314 5y ago
Spending creates real capacity. What you are saying sounds like common census, but is actually tail-wags-dog backwards.

yrgulation 5y ago

Europe may need an army, but many in Europe prefer US leadership. Some of us don't really want to give into german dominance in that area as well as the EU. If it weren't for the US and UK pushing for sanctions against russia, certain countries would still happily trade with putin while he's invading european sovereign states.

Ericson2314 5y ago
Germany dominance is the worst. EU parliament control and not some intergovernmental bullshit is the only way to make this happen, and a good reform either way.
- yrgulation 5y ago
  I know. Just today germany announced it will continue buying russian gas. They don't mind putin bombing ukraine or dirty oligarch money. Instead they will sanction Poland or other EU countries as soon as they are out of "line". A sad state of affairs in europe, and I don't see how reform can happen while the EU is also under its control.

ironcurtain 5y ago

NATO was created to keep US in, Germany down and Russia out. EU army would never work, unless it’s just a job program for underprivileged youths.