It is a bad idea, and a waste of $$$.

NATO already exists, that is essentially the European Military anyways.

Making a "EU Force" is highly redundant.

Aren't there still homeless people in Europe ? At least 20 or so across the continent?

Wouldn't the money be better spend helping them get a job so they can live in a house like the rest of us? *And I mean a civilian job not a military one, ha ha*

John Titor right again.

We are on the path to world war 3.

John Titor quote :

The (nuclear) attack on Europe (from Russia) is in response to a unified European army that masses and moves East from Germany.

Yeah please don't do this.

/half-kidding

[edit on 6-2-2010 by Vitchilo]

The entire concept of an Army that can cross international lines at will is frightening to say the least.

Looking for the NWO?

Here it comes

Semper

Yeah, but not to sure how the French will feel about this, after all, the last time the German's got an idea about an army thing's got kinda squirrlely, and that was just their own army....could be another sign....

Yes, it does seem to be rather frightening. How do we know that Germany does not have a part to play in the NWO? (Or maybe I'm lacking knowledge here).

If this is given the green flag, I wonder what next will. A European Army for the EU. Something definitely doesn't seem to be right.

Well what can we say..Finally..

Very, very bad thing if you ask me : The states will lose their sovereignty, because this army will probably replace all the armies.
And we all know that the EU is corrupted and must be disbanded. This would makes it impossible.

[edit on 6-2-2010 by ickylevel]

I wonder what Russia will think about this, especially if Ukraine and Georgia become EU members.

It would be like being NATO members... so I guess Russia would consider an EU army the same threat as a NATO army.

maloy, if you're here, could you tell us what likely the russian POV will be?

Well NATO is somewhat different in theory from this EU army concept. NATO primarily served the interests of the US during the Cold War, and the purpose of its existance was to face off against the Soviet Union. Right now that the Cold War is long over, it seems that NATO is struggling to define its purpose, which has been questioned by some members. This doesn't stop NATO from expanding however, and it is this expansion that caused concerns for Russia. In Russia, and in certain other countries (including EU/NATO members) NATO continues to be seen as being the tool of the US.

The EU army unlike NATO would solely serve the interests of European partners rather than the interests of the US. Although unlikely, but if this concept becomes reality, it could eventually pave the way for dissolution of NATO. It would be too costly and bureaucratically burdensome to maintain both alliances, and the mission and purpose of NATO would become even more questionable. I just don't see the two parallel alliances existing side by side with mostly the same members.

As for Russia, it could actually be in favor of an EU army, if that meant that NATO would be dissolved. But as it stands now, I could see why it would voice concerns. As for consequences of this if Ukraine and Georgia become part of EU - it depends on the new alliance's doctrine on its scope of operations and involvement. I doubt the EU army would have actual troops from other members stationed in a member country in peace time - each member would have its own troops. And if there is a conflict, each member would probably decide for themselves if they want to get involved - meaning that inaction is still a very likely possibility.



All that being said, this "EU army" is just as likely to become a bureaucratic clusterf**k, causing more problems than solutions. The EU is hardly a homegeneous entity, and with everybody pushing their own agenda this "alliance" would be simultaneously pulled in different directions. And who would command it? Would French troops want to be commanded by a German General for example? Sure this idea could save money overall in defence contracts, but how would the costs be split by the members? And what of the EU members who don't wish to participate. Also what is the scope of operations - would this army be limited to European theater or could it intervene anywhere in the world?

Too many questions, too little detail as it stands now. I would say the possibily of this idea is highly unlikely in short term. The EU has been going through its own problems lately, and there is much disagreement between its members. An alliance like this needs some common uniting cause to bring about its existance and take root - and this cause is absent today.

Trouble with getting rid of NATO is that at least there is an element of pragmatism and restraint there with the Europeans in it . Dismantle NATO and the US will go about forming all kinds of dubious coalition of the 'willings' for heinous jaunts of conquest around the globe.

Maybe the function has gone from the constraint of the soviet union, to the containment of a rapacious member.

[edit on 7-2-2010 by Drexl]

I am French and I can tell you European army won t happen before 2100 lol
If France has entered again in Nato, it s because France had understood that European Army is a big dream that may never happen.

Originally posted by maloy
Well NATO is somewhat different in theory from this EU army concept. NATO primarily served the interests of the US during the Cold War, and the purpose of its existance was to face off against the Soviet Union. Right now that the Cold War is long over, it seems that NATO is struggling to define its purpose, which has been questioned by some members. This doesn't stop NATO from expanding however, and it is this expansion that caused concerns for Russia. In Russia, and in certain other countries (including EU/NATO members) NATO continues to be seen as being the tool of the US.

It served western european interests as well. The West Germans were the biggest proponent of NATO.

Originally posted by maloy
The EU army unlike NATO would solely serve the interests of European partners rather than the interests of the US. Although unlikely, but if this concept becomes reality, it could eventually pave the way for dissolution of NATO. It would be too costly and bureaucratically burdensome to maintain both alliances, and the mission and purpose of NATO would become even more questionable. I just don't see the two parallel alliances existing side by side with mostly the same members.

True.

Originally posted by maloy
As for Russia, it could actually be in favor of an EU army, if that meant that NATO would be dissolved. But as it stands now, I could see why it would voice concerns. As for consequences of this if Ukraine and Georgia become part of EU - it depends on the new alliance's doctrine on its scope of operations and involvement. I doubt the EU army would have actual troops from other members stationed in a member country in peace time - each member would have its own troops. And if there is a conflict, each member would probably decide for themselves if they want to get involved - meaning that inaction is still a very likely possibility.

No Russia would prefer no NATO and no EU army. Russia has always viewed a united Europe as a threat dating back to Napoleon and later the Crimean War

Originally posted by maloy
All that being said, this "EU army" is just as likely to become a bureaucratic clusterf**k, causing more problems than solutions. The EU is hardly a homegeneous entity, and with everybody pushing their own agenda this "alliance" would be simultaneously pulled in different directions. And who would command it? Would French troops want to be commanded by a German General for example? Sure this idea could save money overall in defence contracts, but how would the costs be split by the members? And what of the EU members who don't wish to participate. Also what is the scope of operations - would this army be limited to European theater or could it intervene anywhere in the world?

Correct.

Originally posted by maloy
Too many questions, too little detail as it stands now. I would say the possibily of this idea is highly unlikely in short term. The EU has been going through its own problems lately, and there is much disagreement between its members. An alliance like this needs some common uniting cause to bring about its existance and take root - and this cause is absent today.

Yes but heres the catch that common problem/threat will probably be its large neighbor to the east. As Russia has sought hegemony over Europe for the past 200 years.

Originally posted by danwild6
It served western european interests as well. The West Germans were the biggest proponent of NATO.

It served their interests, but the US was the main driver behind the alliance. US benefited the most from the alliance, because it allowed for greater military flexibility and more political and foreign policy leverage. The Cold War after all was mainly between the US and Soviet Union, and much of Europe was at the sidelines. The Soviet Union never really considered most Western European countries to be its enemy, and the animosity between Soviet Union and Western Europe was never at same level as between it and the US. Nor was the Soviet Union ever truly planning to invade Western Europe, especially not after Stalin's death.

Originally posted by maloy
No Russia would prefer no NATO and no EU army. Russia has always viewed a united Europe as a threat dating back to Napoleon and later the Crimean War

The Cold War changed the Russian mentality in that sense. NATO is perceived to be not just a military opponent, but as sort of an imperialistic concept in that the US half way around the Globe, and yet it wants to have maximum leverage and influence in Europe. That is why the potential of Ukraine joining NATO is so unsettling to many - it would be seen as becoming a puppet of the US.

United Europe is less of a problem for the current Russian government. Putin after all established very positive relations with most Western European countries (with Great Britain being the sole exception). For the first time in history, Russia today actually views Germany as a friend and as a key economic partner for example. Also Russia never really had issues with the EU or with any ex-Soviet bloc countries joining the EU.

Sure an EU army could be a set-back for EU-Russia relations, but if it displaces NATO than it would actually be better, at least as far as people's perceptions go. Also Europe as a whole is seen as more conflict-avert than the US, thus the chances of intervention by the European Army would be smaller than by NATO, especially if you are talking about conflicts outside of Europe.

Originally posted by maloy
Yes but heres the catch that common problem/threat will probably be its large neighbor to the east. As Russia has sought hegemony over Europe for the past 200 years.

The days of European empires are gone, and so is the hegemony seeking doctrines of the nations in question (and yes that includes modern day Russia). A lot has changed in 200 years, and while history should always be a valuable lesson, its relevance lessens when underlying circumstances dramatically change.

Ask any Western European if they feel that Russia is a credible military threat to them - and if the respondent is sane the answer will be no. Russia may be an economic concern, with its energy resources and lower-wage workforce, but a military alliance would not alleviate that. In fact Europeans today are smug pacitists for a reason - there is little threat to them from the outside. The only real enemies they have, are not other nations but extremist groups and cells operating from within their borders.

And you would be mistaken to think that Russia is interested in territory grabbing today. Despite what some diehard Cold War fans believe, it is not ruled by Czars or by Communist Tyrants. It is ruled by businessmen, and every decision is weighed against potential economic fallout. Taking over Europe will not enable the people in power today to line their pockets with anymore money than they already do - and thus there is no reason to fear that happening.

If Soviet Era taught Russians one thing, it is that ruling or controlling people who don't want to be your puppets is a major pain in the ass. US should take note.

[edit on 6-2-2010 by maloy]

There was a plan for an imported European army that got jettisoned. Turkey has maintained a large standing army and advanced military. That was the rationale for bringing it into the EU.

It also had a good working relationship with the US and Israel. But things have changed. The military fought to keep the country secular and the Islamic override down. It's failed.

Turkey has in the past co-ordinated with the other powerhouse in the region, Saudi Arabia. The current administration feels a stronger affiliation with neighbouring Iran and Pakistan.

So ironically Turkey's miltary may one day been in opposition to Europeans rather than fighting for them.

Originally posted by maloy
It served their interests, but the US was the main driver behind the alliance. US benefited the most from the alliance, because it allowed for greater military flexibility and more political and foreign policy leverage. The Cold War after all was mainly between the US and Soviet Union, and much of Europe was at the sidelines. The Soviet Union never really considered most Western European countries to be its enemy, and the animosity between Soviet Union and Western Europe was never at same level as between it and the US. Nor was the Soviet Union ever truly planning to invade Western Europe, especially not after Stalin's death.

I'd disagree that America benefited the most. The Europeas were able to maintain their independence and concentrate on rebuilding their shattered nations while the US provided protection. Europe wasn't on the sidelines it was at the forefront of the Cold War. The Soviets considered the western europeans to be American vassals much in the same way that the Soviets considered Poland and the Warsaw Pact to be their vassals. Its true that many europeans considered the US to be the lesser of two evils. Stalin did seriously plan to invade western europe in 1947 but the advent of the atomic bomb caused him to rethink his plan. Though he did enforce the establishment of comunist regimes in the parts of Europe that fell under his control. He also attempted to force the allies out of West Berlin.

Originally posted by maloy
The Cold War changed the Russian mentality in that sense. NATO is perceived to be not just a military opponent, but as sort of an imperialistic concept in that the US half way around the Globe, and yet it wants to have maximum leverage and influence in Europe. That is why the potential of Ukraine joining NATO is so unsettling to many - it would be seen as becoming a puppet of the US.

True, a Ukraine in NATO destroys Russia's strategic depth but the same would be true of a Ukraine thats a member of the EU that in turn has its own foreign policy and miitary.

Originally posted by maloy
United Europe is less of a problem for the current Russian government. Putin after all established very positive relations with most Western European countries (with Great Britain being the sole exception). For the first time in history, Russia today actually views Germany as a friend and as a key economic partner for example. Also Russia never really had issues with the EU or with any ex-Soviet bloc countries joining the EU.

Largely correct however Poland is less happy in its relationship with Russia.

Originally posted by maloy
Sure an EU army could be a set-back for EU-Russia relations, but if it displaces NATO than it would actually be better, at least as far as people's perceptions go. Also Europe as a whole is seen as more conflict-avert than the US, thus the chances of intervention by the European Army would be smaller than by NATO, especially if you are talking about conflicts outside of Europe.

True Russia would prefer the US not being involved(as would I).

Originally posted by maloy
The days of European empires are gone, and so is the hegemony seeking doctrines of the nations in question (and yes that includes modern day Russia). A lot has changed in 200 years, and while history should always be a valuable lesson, its relevance lessens when underlying circumstances dramatically change.

I'd disagree that Russia hegemony days are done as her actions in Ukraine and Central Asia have displayed.

Originally posted by maloy
Ask any Western European if they feel that Russia is a credible military threat to them - and if the respondent is sane the answer will be no. Russia may be an economic concern, with its energy resources and lower-wage workforce, but a military alliance would not alleviate that. In fact Europeans today are smug pacitists for a reason - there is little threat to them from the outside. The only real enemies they have, are not other nations but extremist groups and cells operating from within their borders.

Europeans feel the way they do about Russia -in part- because the protection NATO offers but to the rest of your post I agree.

Originally posted by maloy
And you would be mistaken to think that Russia is interested in territory grabbing today. Despite what some diehard Cold War fans believe, it is not ruled by Czars or by Communist Tyrants. It is ruled by businessmen, and every decision is weighed against potential economic fallout. Taking over Europe will not enable the people in power today to line their pockets with anymore money than they already do - and thus there is no reason to fear that happening.

Yes even the US doesn't grab territory and is largely rule by business interests but that doesn't mean we don't do shady or aggresive things.

Originally posted by maloy
If Soviet Era taught Russians one thing, it is that ruling or controlling people who don't want to be your puppets is a major pain in the ass. US should take note.

Very well said.

This idea won't float until the neutral EU nations, such as Austria, Finland, Sweden & Ireland, decide to contribute towards common defence. Because you can't have some EU nations contributing & others not, that's the bottom line.

I think it's a ludicrous idea, myself. There'd never be the unanimity required to send this army overseas, it'd be an EU force which never leaves the EU. The EU will effectively become neutral and unhinge itself from the United States altogether, which perhaps is what many Europeans want.

One advantage though might be common defence procurement, every nation buys the same kit, greater efficiency that way. Doubt they'll buy American though, unless there's no other alternative whatever.