Here we go! The EU is now forming a battle group to confront the enemy of the EU.

What happens if the battle group has to go against a NATO country???


EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Defence Ministers on Monday are expected to commit up to 165,000 troops to make up a series of EU 'battle groups' which can be deployed to the World's hot spots.

EU council diplomats said that they expected ministers to pledge enough troops to create 11 battle groups, with each group expected to number 1,000-1,500 troops, ready to be deployed for peacekeeping missions within 10 days, for a period of up to four months.

www.euobserver.com...

Well the force is a reaction force, devided into 11 groups. The purpose of the battle groups is to be able to quickly "move out" in case of war or other serious happenings. The force is not a "European Army", but contributes from European countrys.

Dont speculate about them attacking a NATO country. all the countries which contributes to the reaction force is either a member of NATO or the Western Alliance

Good to see Europe is improving their military cooperation. I hope we will see futher development in the "European Army" soon, perhaps the beginning of independent millitary HQ and high command. construction of bases and development of new technology!



[edit on 19-11-2004 by WindWalker]

All the more reason for the US to pull it's troop out of Europe. This should help Europe to remain stable and thus no need for US troops.

This 11 battle groups are still just for peace keeping, protection against genocides and possible can be even used in small numbers on some disaster, as you read most of em try to specialize on some of the areas.
165.000 troops from over 350 million people cant be yet called EU's army, all countrys still run their own military on the backround, those are just hopely most cases some of the best educated troops who qualify on ethical standars to represent EU's policy in foreign territory if ever crisis occur that need intervention.
What already has been found that UN troops been mostly helpless on crisis area as seen in Kosovo, UN troops sitting in base while Serbs take Albanians right front of em to sure death. Current deployed forces should remove that possibility. Isnt it NATO (mostly US) troops that are needed in most scenarios when UN is somewhere they call NATO for help.

Its well known that French try to run for more militaristic EU forces beyond such scenarios, i doubt such will happen very fast if ever.

We are pretty stable even without that army.
The only reason US Troops were/are here, was insurance during cold war.
I hope at least some US Bases remain here. It is always interesting to see US Military equipment in Action.(Most impressive were F117 *__* )



What happens if Germany,Spain or the USA attack a fellow NATO Country?
Same Game. This time there are just more players.
Looks really promising. Especially because they are specialized for Peacekeeping Missions. The United Nations will be able to respond to trouble a lot faster.

Right now Rumsfeld is trying to re-organize are troops into smaller more flexible, faster to deployment units. When that is achieved his philosophy is that we can station most of our troops in the states instead of overseas. This is supposed to make our troops happy that they are close to home and the citizens from the host countries that we pull out off happy that we are gone. This is suposed to reduce the military cost burden as well.

If most of Europe is consolidating into one then any possiblity of war in Europe should be eliminated. My question is if the EU creates this fighting force will the EU become more involved in world affairs and start to use the military option more often.

help remain? we have been stable for 20 years atleast.

First of all, why is the E.U. developing "battle groups?'' The E.U. already has a simiar task force called the Eurocorps, which comprises of, I belive is around 50,000 troops. Why don't the 25 members of the E.U. just contribute more strenght into the Eurocorps?