3 ms·

> NATO is fraying at the edges, and EU is the only credible alternative The EU isn't a military unit though, is it? It's a regulatory one.

mrweasel 2y ago
> The EU isn't a military unit though, is it? The EU has it's own version of NATOs article 5, it's the "Mutual defence clause", but people tend to forget that. From the excerpt: > This clause provides that if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power
- tfourb 2y ago
  The EU mutual defense clause is even stronger than Article V of the NATO treaty: Nato Treaty: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." Translation: Every NATO member can bloody well decide for themselves ("as it deems necessary") how to help another member state. Article 42/7 of the EU treaty: "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter." Translation: You got to give it everything you got ("all means in their power"). If Ukraine had been an EU member, the treaty would have required other EU member states to send ground troops. Of course, international treaties can not be enforced, if the treaty parties don't want to comply. So in reality, both treaties rely on mutual accepted norms of behavior more than on the letter of the law. Which is why Trump's behavior has been so damaging to the NATO alliance, without any actual test of it. And while the EU's treaty is worded stronger than NATO's, it has never been formally used or tested.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  People don't see the EU as a suicide pact so it wont function as one.
rich_sasha 2y ago
There's a growing concern that the US would not defend its allies, or worse, join Russia in a European war. So, right or wrong, Europe is thinking of building an alternative. It would require not only military, but also political coordination. The options are to do it within, or outside the EU. Within the EU, it is somewhat straightforward. As a sibling comment says, there is already a vague commitment to mutual defence. There is a forum for political discussion, common diplomacy, mechanisms for coordinating industrial policy, the works. And any changes could be seen as incremental strengthening of an existing thing. To do it outside of the EU, most of all, makes the original concern explicit - it is saying US has left the NATO. This is in no-one's benefit. Even ambiguous US participation is valuable to Europe. The other downside is that, as is, a EU "NATO" can't easily include UK and Norway, both valuable allies. Which is maybe what Norway wants to address here.
mytailorisrich 2y ago
Ah but that's exactly what the EU is trying to do, me thinks. They are using the curcumstances as an opportunity and pretext to involve themselves in military issues, perhaps even to propose full-on EU forces soon.

mrweasel 2y ago

> The EU isn't a military unit though, is it? The EU has it's own version of NATOs article 5, it's the "Mutual defence clause", but people tend to forget that. From the excerpt: > This clause provides that if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power

tfourb 2y ago
The EU mutual defense clause is even stronger than Article V of the NATO treaty: Nato Treaty: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." Translation: Every NATO member can bloody well decide for themselves ("as it deems necessary") how to help another member state. Article 42/7 of the EU treaty: "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter." Translation: You got to give it everything you got ("all means in their power"). If Ukraine had been an EU member, the treaty would have required other EU member states to send ground troops. Of course, international treaties can not be enforced, if the treaty parties don't want to comply. So in reality, both treaties rely on mutual accepted norms of behavior more than on the letter of the law. Which is why Trump's behavior has been so damaging to the NATO alliance, without any actual test of it. And while the EU's treaty is worded stronger than NATO's, it has never been formally used or tested.
rightbyte 2y ago
People don't see the EU as a suicide pact so it wont function as one.

rich_sasha 2y ago

There's a growing concern that the US would not defend its allies, or worse, join Russia in a European war. So, right or wrong, Europe is thinking of building an alternative. It would require not only military, but also political coordination. The options are to do it within, or outside the EU. Within the EU, it is somewhat straightforward. As a sibling comment says, there is already a vague commitment to mutual defence. There is a forum for political discussion, common diplomacy, mechanisms for coordinating industrial policy, the works. And any changes could be seen as incremental strengthening of an existing thing. To do it outside of the EU, most of all, makes the original concern explicit - it is saying US has left the NATO. This is in no-one's benefit. Even ambiguous US participation is valuable to Europe. The other downside is that, as is, a EU "NATO" can't easily include UK and Norway, both valuable allies. Which is maybe what Norway wants to address here.

mytailorisrich 2y ago

Ah but that's exactly what the EU is trying to do, me thinks. They are using the curcumstances as an opportunity and pretext to involve themselves in military issues, perhaps even to propose full-on EU forces soon.