Should the E.U. create a Military?

[merocaine]

He, He

Still at the end of the day, without a big immediete threat it will be very hard to build a integrated military.

Even in Germany it took a massive war with France to bring about a Federal state and military union, and they all spoke the same language and considered themselves german people!

Whats happening at the moment is an effort by stealth to build a EU task force, there doing it as quitely as possible in the hope no one notices!

 

[kato]

Even in Germany it took a massive war with France to bring about a Federal state and military union, and they all spoke the same language and considered themselves german people!

Not really. Actually, there was a rather large "unification war" going on just 5 years before that which Prussia won (and Austria, along with several allied South German states, lost, leading to exclusion of Austria from the Empire). The North/South split along the same lines as before the 1866 war is still visible in Germany in some respects now, 140 years later, really - in economic matters, especially, but also in state politics. The war against France in 1870 was just the (then successful) attempt to "drive the empire home" by expansion. The federal empire as declared in Versailles could just as well have been declared without the war on France. However, in that case, it wouldn't have been seen as strong militarily probably, and, especially in South Germany, the military cohesion and loyalty to the Empire would have remained rather diminished.

 

[Grand Danois]

Is there a raison d'être for having militaries in Europe at all then? Besides making dinner on hot tank grills... (that would be enough for me).

 

[kato]

Is there a raison d'être for having militaries in Europe at all then? Besides making dinner on hot tank grills... (that would be enough for me).

Peacekeeping. Forced Entry stuff too.
Missions like Bosnia (EUFOR), Lebanon (UNIFIL) or Congo (EUFOR DR CONGO), which are all handled almost exclusively by the EU now, with some additional NATO assistance (because the US feels it doesn't wanna get involved again). Darfur will be the next big thing, and UNO has already come knocking.

 

[swerve]

This march to Moscow didn't work for us or the French in the past...

Why not something smaller as a target?
And especially with better weather and more beaches!!!!

Rescue Tunisia from the dastardly Libyans?

 

[Waylander]

Ah finally a reasonable proposal.

 

[swerve]

Ah finally a reasonable proposal.

Welllll - maybe we should be a bit more ambitious with our scenario & rescue Tunisia from the dastardly Algerians.

 

[kato]

Welllll - maybe we should be a bit more ambitious with our scenario & rescue Tunisia from the dastardly Algerians.

Nah, we should fight alongside the valiant Algerians against .. ugh.. the dastardly Moroccans! Isla Perejil and all that.

 

[falcon2k7]

I remember studying European Economic and Political Law when I was over there in 2002 and at the end of it going, "How in the bloody hell does the EU get anything done?" The German professor insisted that the EU "Agrees to do something and then figures out how later." With the interlocking bureaucratic nightmare that is the EU, it's a miracle the EU gets anything done at all.

I was in Berlin on December 12, 2002 when EU expansion was discussed and I remember the Polish Ambassador to Germany saying something to the effect they like the whole free movement of capital, goods, people, etc. But end of the day, Poland would be ruled from Warsaw not Brussels. They had forty years of the ole Soviet masters and don't really care for that.

When I lived over there, I still got the sense that people saw themselves as Italians, Germans, French (especially the French) and not as "Europeans". Some day that may change, but until then I see the current NATO structure lasting. After all, NATO seems to work, why mess with it?

 

[merocaine]

When I lived over there, I still got the sense that people saw themselves as Italians, Germans, French (especially the French) and not as "Europeans".

nothing wrong with that, theres no chance of us ever becoming as homogenous as the US, to aim for that is just setting the bar to high.
We need a clear an present danger, to browe a phase, before europe will throughly start to merge there defence structures.

 

[Grand Danois]

Peacekeeping. Forced Entry stuff too.
Missions like Bosnia (EUFOR), Lebanon (UNIFIL) or Congo (EUFOR DR CONGO), which are all handled almost exclusively by the EU now, with some additional NATO assistance (because the US feels it doesn't wanna get involved again). Darfur will be the next big thing, and UNO has already come knocking.

Allright, that is acknowledged. Allow me to rephrase. Is a 265ish billion dollar defence expenditure justified by these missions?

To flesh my thinking out: Normally the expenditure is justified by national security as per the threat assessment. However, as threats have disappeared (Sov Union) and security is vested in the collective (NATO plus others), many militaries that don't have the critical mass to go expeditionary alone, are caught on the wrong leg. Thus, the intl joint peacekeeping/peacemaking mission gets to the fore.

But defence expenditures in the hundreds of billions of dollars to enable Europe to do above tasks?

Then we actually do have some countries who have the mass to do things on their own. Like the UK in Sierra Leone. Then again, if a vessel like CVF is required with its F-35's and other high tech gadgetery, then we are really not talking Sierra Leone; we're talking high intensity war with a capable foe. A thing that would only happen together with allies, be it the US or in a EU context (hehe!).

So, if we're to spend that kind of money, we - the Europeans - either need a threat or a mission (that can be agreed upon) that require that kind of expenditure.

Raison d´être. Any bids?

I think the EU battlegroups and other current initiatives actually might fit quite well into what the EU will take on. Politically it has realism, though some missions may not in real life. However, if the entire expenditure should account for itself as a truly unified military, the expense and use of manpower would have difficulty justifying themselves.

It would seem the current EU model is a good fit. But it only represent a fraction of the militaries. UN and NATO missions account for some parts as well...

Oh well. Trying to point out a discrepancy I perceive between what we spend and what we get, if this is the supposed to be the ambition level.

 

[swerve]

...
Raison d´être. Any bids?
....

1) Insurance policy against future threats. Needs maintenance of skills & stocks of equipment, because it takes longer to rebuild from scratch than the time we might have between awareness of the nascent threat & its blossoming.

CVF, Typhoon, Scalp Naval etc. But should reduce the variety of systems.

2) Peacekeeping & low-intensity warfare, as at present.

A400M, assorted wheeled AFVs, Absalon, helicopters, LPDs. AMX Ghibli is well-suited to this, & it's a pity they haven't all been sent to Afghanistan, instead of the French sending Rafales & Mirage 2000s, & us talking about sending Typhoons.

 

[metro]

[American Speaking]What do you guys think could strengthen NATO to a point where all "necessary missions" could be carried out and each member country must use its true "weight" in any NATO mission?

-I think business is a big deal. For those countries who want influence in NATO but not on the battlefield, I think they should be excluded from "Protection," "Weapons sales/deals," potential oil/water/etc deals. "You're in or you're out."

Just wondering what you think. IMO a strong NATO alliance that could one day involve Japan and Australia MAYBE India (as well as the quasi-members) would create a very strong alliance with countries that have diverse expertise (wishful thinking is a good thing)

 

[falcon2k7]

nothing wrong with that, theres no chance of us ever becoming as homogenous as the US, to aim for that is just setting the bar to high.
We need a clear an present danger, to browe a phase, before europe will throughly start to merge there defence structures.

I agree. Will never rule out any possibility in future, but highly unlikely. Furthermore European history shades domestic policy towards parts of the world, especially with Africa. The British have interests over former parts of the Empire just as the French still have interest in regions they once held. How would the Germans feel about that kind of baggage?

And NATO already has a lot of standards in place for common logistics. Hell, even the Commonwealth Countries and the United States are harmonizing even more flying basically the same aircraft.

 

[kato]

Raison d´être. Any bids?

Yugoslavia War 1999. Had the EU done that alone (the political will was there), it'd have needed troops beyond what it earmarks for ERRF, Eurocorps etc now.
And there's still some instability left in the world in parts where the EU might want to secure their position, and might need a war on the same scale to do it. In Eastern Europe only in concert with Russia of course.

It would seem the current EU model is a good fit. But it only represent a fraction of the militaries. UN and NATO missions account for some parts as well...

For some example numbers: Germany has 15,000 troops pledged to NATO NRF (which is pretty much all-European), and 18,000 troops in ERRF, EUFOR and (primarily) Eurocorps. That's 33,000 out of 250,000, and most of those 33,000 are combat troops, rear echelon is concentrated in the rest. Somewhat remarkably, France pledges somewhat similar numbers, and the UK has about the same percentage of its military engaged in Iraq.

As for the cost of it all... Germany is currently transitioning to a structure that allows a two-fold engagement along the two lines that swerve laid out. Total cost for this transitioning alone i'd estimate at around 50 billion euro over some 10 years, for switching to a high/low mix in equipment. And after complete transitioning, the hi/lo mixed German military will still need the same ~22 billion in maintenance, personnel and upkeep cost per year that it need now (the other 6 billion of the budget are investment). And that's for a military that doesn't have the necessary power projection still, or a certain costly strategic positioning (that the UK and France have, you know what i mean).

Personally, i'd prefer a prospective EU military to be limited to WEU, as it's now (as the re-integrated defence pillar of EU politics). And not just because the twins can't interfere in WEU.

 

[Waylander]

I agree.
The EU as it is now is too big to form a cohesive military and so every effort into such a direction should be limited to the WEU. When this is established one can look at integrating other countries.

As for the current way the twins act. That's just ridicilous nothing more...

 

[swerve]

...

As for the current way the twins act. That's just ridicilous nothing more...

No argument.

 

[Grand Danois]

Agree on the twins. Hopefully they'll learn how to make a collective work.

(Swerve et Kato, I will return later for this thread.)