4 ms·

the UK, with one of the more powerful militaries, is not part of the EU. many EU members and the UK are part of NATO which performs much the same job that an EU

the UK, with one of the more powerful militaries, is not part of the EU. many EU members and the UK are part of NATO which performs much the same job that an EU force would.

wongarsu 3y ago
NATO armed forces would be under the command of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, who by pure coincidence happens to always be an American. Right below him is the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, who has been British in 22/30 cases. If the EU wants to have an army that serves their interests, I would consider it prudent to have the command of that army be in EU hands, instead of just handing their soldiers to the US. They can still join defensive treaties with the UK, or simply stay in NATO, but that's a different question from how the army is organized when Article 5 of NATO hasn't been triggered.
- zabzonk 3y ago
  but who would this EU force fight that NATO wouldn't?
  - wongarsu 3y ago
    A future equivalent to the Kosovo war (that time NATO intervened, but they didn't have to). Or what about wars on the EU's South-Eastern border? Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran. The US has complicated feelings about the region that don't always align with the EU. Also protecting European interests in a future war between Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia over the water in the Nile River (Egypt is right next door to Greece and Cyprus after all). Not to mention future actions in Lybia, Algeria or Morocco to deal with illegal immigration. If we are to convince France to merge their army with the common EU force the EU might be forced to also protect French interests in West Africa (they are quite involved in that region still)
    - zabzonk 3y ago
      well, i'm not convinced that an EU force is viable. NATO has a pretty clear raison d'etre - attack one of us and all of us will respond. but somehow I can't see germany supporting france in west africa, or poland supporting italy in actions against libya.

the UK, with one of the more powerful militaries, is not part of the EU. many EU members and the UK are part of NATO which performs much the same job that an EU force would.

wongarsu 3y ago

NATO armed forces would be under the command of the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, who by pure coincidence happens to always be an American. Right below him is the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, who has been British in 22/30 cases. If the EU wants to have an army that serves their interests, I would consider it prudent to have the command of that army be in EU hands, instead of just handing their soldiers to the US. They can still join defensive treaties with the UK, or simply stay in NATO, but that's a different question from how the army is organized when Article 5 of NATO hasn't been triggered.

zabzonk 3y ago
but who would this EU force fight that NATO wouldn't?
- wongarsu 3y ago
  A future equivalent to the Kosovo war (that time NATO intervened, but they didn't have to). Or what about wars on the EU's South-Eastern border? Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran. The US has complicated feelings about the region that don't always align with the EU. Also protecting European interests in a future war between Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia over the water in the Nile River (Egypt is right next door to Greece and Cyprus after all). Not to mention future actions in Lybia, Algeria or Morocco to deal with illegal immigration. If we are to convince France to merge their army with the common EU force the EU might be forced to also protect French interests in West Africa (they are quite involved in that region still)
  - zabzonk 3y ago
    well, i'm not convinced that an EU force is viable. NATO has a pretty clear raison d'etre - attack one of us and all of us will respond. but somehow I can't see germany supporting france in west africa, or poland supporting italy in actions against libya.