Raising a unified European army: myth or reality?
-
The idea isn't really for everyone to give up their militaries, at least in the short to mid term, but to integrate that army with a central command. There are already various integrated divisions and battalions serving with other member's armies, iirc for example the dutch have attached a pioneer battalion to the german forces that essentially operates as one of theirs, pretty sure the Scandinavian countries have done similar things as well.
For central command there is the NATO infrastructure. Even if the US don't participate, the central command is there.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Am EU army was one of the scare tactics used in the Brexit referendum, so can’t imagine it’s the most popular idea in many of the member states. Presumably Zelenskyy is thinking more of a coalition defence force though - though that raises all sorts of questions about how command and control would work.
-
And which country is willing to give up it's army and hand it over to Europe?
I like the idea but think it's better to standardise the armies of Europe than to unite them into one single army.I don't understand the benefit of it tbh except for overhauling everything to look the same?
Joint military drills are common and basically the same thing. -
For central command there is the NATO infrastructure. Even if the US don't participate, the central command is there.
Fair point, although NATO without america would essentially be EU and friends. So it makes sense to build up that infrastructure locally.
-
I don't understand the benefit of it tbh except for overhauling everything to look the same?
Joint military drills are common and basically the same thing.I don’t understand the benefit of it tbh except for overhauling everything to look the same?
It's not about looking the same but being produced by the same producer to the same standards in huge numbers.
Lack of economy of scale is the by far biggest drawback of European military production and makes them totally uncompetitive.
-
For central command there is the NATO infrastructure. Even if the US don't participate, the central command is there.
The central command is there, but it's led by America. This means that, if we rely on NATO mechanisms, America effectively controls collective responses by Europe, which is undesirable now that they are not on Europe's side in the conflict with Russia, and they state over and over again that they intend to annex Greenland.
A European central command and standardisation between countries makes a lot of sense to me. If member states don't want to give up autonomy, maybe with some kind of opt-out clause. That way the countries that are willing won't need to coordinate poorly through dozens of bilateral communication channels, but can jointly operate with a common strategy, and at worst, not all member states would contribute to every action. Plenty of possibilities for problems still, but a step up from the current situation.
I would personally still prefer to see a more integrated European military, though. While we will have a bunch of low-population countries all doing all possible tasks poorly, instead of having some specialise to specific strengths and sourcing collectively, the EU will always be weaker militarily than a comparable force that is not split in such a manner.
-
This post did not contain any content.
A common procurement agency would be a logical next step and solve a lot of the cost problems without incurring command issues, no?
-
A common procurement agency would be a logical next step and solve a lot of the cost problems without incurring command issues, no?
Not just cost but logistics which would be a huge win.
-
Fair point, although NATO without america would essentially be EU and friends. So it makes sense to build up that infrastructure locally.
Central command is no material infrastructure. Europe can listen to a European commander when they are fighting European fights.
-
The central command is there, but it's led by America. This means that, if we rely on NATO mechanisms, America effectively controls collective responses by Europe, which is undesirable now that they are not on Europe's side in the conflict with Russia, and they state over and over again that they intend to annex Greenland.
A European central command and standardisation between countries makes a lot of sense to me. If member states don't want to give up autonomy, maybe with some kind of opt-out clause. That way the countries that are willing won't need to coordinate poorly through dozens of bilateral communication channels, but can jointly operate with a common strategy, and at worst, not all member states would contribute to every action. Plenty of possibilities for problems still, but a step up from the current situation.
I would personally still prefer to see a more integrated European military, though. While we will have a bunch of low-population countries all doing all possible tasks poorly, instead of having some specialise to specific strengths and sourcing collectively, the EU will always be weaker militarily than a comparable force that is not split in such a manner.
Central command is no material infrastructure. Europe can listen to a European commander when they are fighting European fights.
