5 ms·

"Strategic autonomy" comes from investing in your armed forces, not adding a layer of bureaucracy on top of them

WJW 5y ago
The EU army would be a layer of bureaucracy less, not more. So far the plans have not gone anywhere because national governments have been unwilling to give up final authority over their armies ("No German will command a Frenchman into battle!"). This has been partly due to historical mistrust, partly due to political considerations and partly due to a lack of urgency. This means that setting up any military activity in EU context (such as Operation Atalanta for example) requires going through all the individual national governments and asking for troops. A true EU-wide army would be a standing organization with pre-approved funding and means that could move much quicker than the current system. Investing in armed forces is also important, but adding up the funding of the individual member states already brings you quite far compared to basically any country except the US and China.
- Xylakant 5y ago
  Note that there are also legal issues. The German army is the parliaments army, and as such the Bundestag must approve any mission that requires deployment outside German territory (NATO missions and EU missions are somewhat privileged). That would hinder foreign deployments of a joint European army.
- kkfx 5y ago
  EU army means French army, since it's the sole remaining global power. And for us, EU Citizens, that would be a very good move, but the biggest real barrier is linguistic and even with social willingness (almost present even if, of course, does not emerge on mass media) and political willingness (not present almost at all) such barrier can't be solved. My own personal view is a smaller EU: - France - Spain - Italy (too tied to NATO due to WWII past, but less than Germany) - Portugal - then Germany (too tied to NATO due to WWII past) That form a new core EU in fiscal terms (even if all those countries are different real differences are limited), then in political terms with "cross-border parties", then in military terms like a small scale NATO lead by France. The the rest, smaller western countries can only follow, northern part who now talk out loud but in real terms can't live alone would have no choice but follow. UK can't do much now, with "the Commonwealth crisis" and the domestic intra-UK crisis there isn't much room to maneuver. Russia would not like that, of course, but between China (a historic enemy and still not really friendly and much interested in Russian eastern land) and a really united EU they'll jump the ship quickly: most of their infra, the tech they need is in the west and EU mutually need Russian resources instead of just tapping them giving back only industrial mass production. It's really unlikely but our best interest.
  - credit_guy 5y ago
    > Russia would not like that Oh, how much Russia would love that. A smaller EU? Are you kidding? Any day of the week, twice on Sunday.
    - kkfx 5y ago
      A united EU, for real and not of small states but the major EU powers, France the seventh world power, Germany a big economic power, Italy the third EU manufacturing power, actually the base of much of Germany and France tech together, Spain and Portugal still very important view their links to South America. For Russia means having a nascent new old global power no one can stop. Remember: until WWI big western European powers was the world leading superpowers. Russia back then was a fragile empire and USA a marginal and local-only power like China. We still have the most advanced tech and the biggest hi quality industrial complex both USA and China can't really rival except on scale.

WJW 5y ago

The EU army would be a layer of bureaucracy less, not more. So far the plans have not gone anywhere because national governments have been unwilling to give up final authority over their armies ("No German will command a Frenchman into battle!"). This has been partly due to historical mistrust, partly due to political considerations and partly due to a lack of urgency. This means that setting up any military activity in EU context (such as Operation Atalanta for example) requires going through all the individual national governments and asking for troops. A true EU-wide army would be a standing organization with pre-approved funding and means that could move much quicker than the current system. Investing in armed forces is also important, but adding up the funding of the individual member states already brings you quite far compared to basically any country except the US and China.

Xylakant 5y ago
Note that there are also legal issues. The German army is the parliaments army, and as such the Bundestag must approve any mission that requires deployment outside German territory (NATO missions and EU missions are somewhat privileged). That would hinder foreign deployments of a joint European army.
kkfx 5y ago
EU army means French army, since it's the sole remaining global power. And for us, EU Citizens, that would be a very good move, but the biggest real barrier is linguistic and even with social willingness (almost present even if, of course, does not emerge on mass media) and political willingness (not present almost at all) such barrier can't be solved. My own personal view is a smaller EU: - France - Spain - Italy (too tied to NATO due to WWII past, but less than Germany) - Portugal - then Germany (too tied to NATO due to WWII past) That form a new core EU in fiscal terms (even if all those countries are different real differences are limited), then in political terms with "cross-border parties", then in military terms like a small scale NATO lead by France. The the rest, smaller western countries can only follow, northern part who now talk out loud but in real terms can't live alone would have no choice but follow. UK can't do much now, with "the Commonwealth crisis" and the domestic intra-UK crisis there isn't much room to maneuver. Russia would not like that, of course, but between China (a historic enemy and still not really friendly and much interested in Russian eastern land) and a really united EU they'll jump the ship quickly: most of their infra, the tech they need is in the west and EU mutually need Russian resources instead of just tapping them giving back only industrial mass production. It's really unlikely but our best interest.
- credit_guy 5y ago
  > Russia would not like that Oh, how much Russia would love that. A smaller EU? Are you kidding? Any day of the week, twice on Sunday.
  - kkfx 5y ago
    A united EU, for real and not of small states but the major EU powers, France the seventh world power, Germany a big economic power, Italy the third EU manufacturing power, actually the base of much of Germany and France tech together, Spain and Portugal still very important view their links to South America. For Russia means having a nascent new old global power no one can stop. Remember: until WWI big western European powers was the world leading superpowers. Russia back then was a fragile empire and USA a marginal and local-only power like China. We still have the most advanced tech and the biggest hi quality industrial complex both USA and China can't really rival except on scale.