Rise of an EU "Super Army"

Hello ATS,

I tried to search for this topic on Above Top Secret and I could not find it, rather ONE thread on a possible EU army, supposedly kept secret during the whole "Brexit" issue, this can be found in "Gortex" thread. However, as I was web browsing, I finally got TWO hits, one on an alt news site I occasionally check out, "YourNewsWire" and a Youtube channel I check out daily, "NextNewsNetwork." The article in question has to do with the creation of an EU Super Army, at the expense of 420 million a year. Its goal is to reduced dependency off the US and NATO, as well future issues such as energy security and defense.

I have often wondered if this is in response to President-Elect Donald Trumps rhetoric on other nations having to start pulling their own weight. I haven't researched it yet, but I was under the impression that NATO is somewhat of a EU force. Below is the link for review. If the topic already exist, please remove MODs, like I said, I did an initial search and found nothing.

420 million a year, is that enough to fund a "super Army"? or anything relative to that? Thanks and I hope to see some interesting responses.

-Arnie

References
www.express.co.uk...

a reply to: Arnie123

I don't see how 420 MILLION a year could fund a EU super army. France already spends 50 BILLION a year and Germany 40 BILLION per year. Maybe they meant billion instead of million?

a reply to: Arnie123

For the 2011 fiscal year, the president's base budget for the Department of Defense and spending on "overseas contingency operations" combine to bring the sum to US$664.84 billion.[2][3]

Should be plenty , they could fight for 2 hours .

a reply to: Arnie123

Sounds more like they are setting up an institution based upon pooling resources and better coordination between European militaries.

Hardly an EU army or a super one for that matter. I'd fully expect orders will come from the same places.

450 million would buy you maybe 4 Eurofighters or F-35's, they are not cheap to run or arm either. The average soldier is carrying anywhere between 5000 -150,000 dollars worth of equipment.

You'd struggle to raise a peasant army with that cash, food, clothing, equipment, transport, weaponry, ammunition... It all adds up.

What are they going to fight with, sticks and stones?

Who can tell me, why Europeans need army? It's a serious question.

They willingly gifted their sovereignty to overseas occupiers and then presented their territories with all contents to alien invaders. Why bother?

Against Russia, perhaps? There is no need.


BTW, 420 million is a lot considering the way they are going to spend it)) (src):

RIGA, Latvia — Amid surging fears about what the Trump presidency will mean for nations lining Russia’s border, the employees of Latvia’s Defense Ministry already have a worst-case plan: They will defend their imposing headquarters in central Riga to the last.

They formed a 20-person-strong unit of a volunteer militia over the summer. They are armed. And they have been training.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
What are they going to fight with, sticks and stones?

Nope words. Because we've all recently learned they hurt! . Lol

I will fear it when Europe can win a war without US or UK help

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
What are they going to fight with, sticks and stones?

White flags and the ghosts of the spanish armada

If there is one good thing with the Supertrump thing, than that Europe now will cut the cord to the USA.
I hope that means that all the listening stations to observe the average european citizens, the hidden CIA torture jails, the US nukes(that make Europe a target), all the alphabet agencies members, taxdodgers like Facebook, Twitter, Apple etc are pulled out of europe.
But i feel bad for the US soldiers(99% poor or almost poor US citizens that had no other chance), that lived and worked here maybe for years, if they have to go back to the US, to the insecure house divided against itself.

a reply to: crazyewok

Of course the politicians have to be at the front lines.

Super and EU Army are words that should never be used together, how many times has England, USA and Australia bailed them out of trouble when it comes to war ? EU = Bunch of Sissie Fairies that only have a white star on a white background flag !!!

a reply to: DerBeobachter

I'm not so sure.

We may pull out entirely, however other social institutions such as social media platforms will continue to remain in place, obviously.

I don't think these countries are trying to snub each other, more so looking towards a future where they might have to depend on themselves. Whatever the case may be, I feel that this presdency and Obama's assurance weren't enough.
If the EU Army was already in the works prior, perhaps this simply just got the ball rolling.

originally posted by: mazzroth
Super and EU Army are words that should never be used together, how many times has England, USA and Australia bailed them out of trouble when it comes to war ? EU = Bunch of Sissie Fairies that only have a white star on a white background flag !!!

Well, to be fair, a collaborarion of different nations military would be a "super" army, would it not? Now instead of a ONE nation army, a mutli nation army, a Super army if you will...
Sounds good doesn't it? Now who gets to control the force and more importantly, will it be on parity with other nations who don' experience comabt daily like the US or other few countries constantly engaging in some kind of warfare?

Some EU countries, notably France, have been trying to create an EU military for ages. The UK has traditionally opposed such acts. With the UK leaving the EU France may get its way. It won't be a threat to NATOs pre-eminent position, unless the US decide to be more isolationist, because the Eastern European nations want NATO to remain.

One thing is clear, is that when the UK leave the EU, the EU will start to come together federally.

a reply to: paraphi

This is interesting, is this the result of keeping the remaining countries sticking together, without fear of a total break up?

a reply to: paraphi

Personally I think it makes sense, Europe as a whole is pretty diverse in terms of geology alone, I know NATO initiative has been at it a long time in terms of cooperation between nations within Europe though cost will always be an issue.

It's unrealistic for all major European nations to hold a deep water navy and cover all aspects of terrain in terms of military capability and at the same time if a major war broke out those same militaries would need training and capabilities that are encompassing to such needs.

But this isn't it, I'd say it's a long way off still.

a reply to: mazzroth

Two wars in the last 100 years.

Not to mention they were all at each others throats for a long time leading up to that... Or the fact that a good portion of European nations have a history less than 150 years old.

Do a little reading on European history mate, you'll find that the last 400 years is FILLED with strong Europeans with powerful endeavours.

originally posted by: Arnie123
... I was under the impression that NATO is somewhat of a EU force.

NATO has nothing to do with the EU. It just so happens that a number of EU countries are also NATO members.

It's now been some time that the EU secret services tried to convince me they want me as the EU leader .... That's weird!!! I Wonder why they tell me this stuff!