|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On November 16 2017 01:47 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 01:22 Sent. wrote:On November 15 2017 22:14 Toadesstern wrote:On November 15 2017 21:37 Nixer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:33 a_flayer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:31 Nixer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:25 a_flayer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:23 Nixer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:07 a_flayer wrote:On November 15 2017 21:04 Nixer wrote:
Again, the motivation behind it is defensive co-operation. Whether or not it will evolve into something else is a different matter but it is not, as an idea, meant for aggression from the get go. Which is what he said. Oh, I must have missed that he said it would be aggression from the get go. Perhaps you could quote the bit where he said it would be an immediate thing? On November 15 2017 15:45 xM(Z wrote:
Edit: about the deterrent factor - give me a break dude, you already have NATO; what, you need 2 deterrence armies to be safe?.
the EU army is to be used abroad, offensively, to defend EU interests(killing (other then us)people in the process). Ex: what frenches did in Mali or how the italians sent their army to defend/protect (private)economical interests in Irak(a dam if i remember correctly) ... etcetcetc. It's not exactly far-fetched, now is it? Yeah, what he is saying is not exactly far-fetched. Don't be a smart-arse. If he says that there's no point in having additional deterrence because there is already a defensive alliance in place in Europe (disregard NATO operations as a whole, but look at their purpose in the European mainland), largely anyway, then what's the point of having a defensive EU army? He's right about that in a way, but what he isn't right about is why this framework is being developed and these steps are being taken. There's a heavy implication there. Oh and need I remind you that an "EU army" is still quite distant? Now, do you need more hand-holding? It is quite distant indeed. So with that in mind, why would you think that he meant "immediately" or "from the get go". You're not making any sense. What's the point of creating another deterrence when there's already a good deterrence in place already? So it must not be meant to be a deterrence and a defensive co-operation then because why would they push for it? xM(Z is always talking about how everything Germany does is meant to build up an empire and how that's in our nature as germans. It's kind of his thing in here. But I would argue that your line of thought that it can't (?) be a deterrence when there's already one in place for that (NATO) is flawed simply because of the past 2 years or so. We had Merkel telling people that the US is not an ally we should trust a 100% anymore with Trumps remarks and that the EU needs to be able to defend itself even in a case of the US backing out etc. If you ignore the rhetorics they (Merkel and your interpretation of xM(Z) both mean that Germany doesn't like the US anymore and wants to play global politics with its own toys. You have to put a quite hefty spin to Merkel's words to arrive at that conclusion, rhetorics or not.
You realize, though, that what Merkel says or even the common rhetoric used in favor of such an agreement does not necessarily reflect on the motivation of every single individual European politician who voted "yes" on the agreement?
Nor do you have to put any spin on what Merkel says. She (and others) may just be incomplete in listing (t)he(i)r motivations.
|
Allright, so let's assume Europe wants to build an army that listens to europe and not to the individual states. The individual states lose their armies in the process. Europe reduces overall spending, troopsize etc and now the EU is a real diplomatic and military power. Let's not argue for a second what that would mean for the individual states, where is the leap in logic that the new Europe will now act aggressively and use the army? Germany rebuild it's army and since then has not started any wars, the ones it participated in where broad coalitions based on international right. The existance of an army is not the guarantee for an aggressive imperialistic policy. Europe could significantly reduce troopcount and spending and still be more capable then before. I don't think this will happen in the next 30 years, but i also can't see why it would be automatically worse then 25 nations having their own armies they don't use.
|
I honestly doubt that we'll in the near future stumble into anything that will be labeled as an outright war that would require full strength of a EU army. I think what we will see however is support against terrorism, nation building efforts and so forth in Africa and the Middle-East where Europe will need to step its game up, because the USA seems to withdraw from the region with her 'pivot to Asia', and also because migration and climate change issues will deeply affect the African continent.
|
Personally, I think an EU military force has far more benefits than draw backs. It can be used support nations that are overwhelmed by some natural disaster or other event. This is often what the US army/national guard does. It also allows the EU allies to respond to conflicts without having to tap into their own national defense and use troops from nations that may not support becoming involved. That is one of the better features of the US system. Our National Guard allows for service, but does not have the same requirements and likelihood of deployment as the Marines.
This all assumes it works like that and isn't just some chimera of all the member's armies. That system might not work well.
|
On November 16 2017 02:43 Broetchenholer wrote:
Allright, so let's assume Europe wants to build an army that listens to europe and not to the individual states. The individual states lose their armies in the process. Europe reduces overall spending, troopsize etc and now the EU is a real diplomatic and military power. Let's not argue for a second what that would mean for the individual states, where is the leap in logic that the new Europe will now act aggressively and use the army? Germany rebuild it's army and since then has not started any wars, the ones it participated in where broad coalitions based on international right. The existance of an army is not the guarantee for an aggressive imperialistic policy. Europe could significantly reduce troopcount and spending and still be more capable then before. I don't think this will happen in the next 30 years, but i also can't see why it would be automatically worse then 25 nations having their own armies they don't use.
23 members of one of the three biggest economies in the world signed the agreement, 20 of them agreed to significantly increase their military spending (3 already spend their 2%). Your conclusions are:
- Europe will reduce overall military spending,
- less tropps (because?),
- the army won't be used aggressively in peacekeeping and "peacekeeping" in Africa and the Middle East, just like the armies of individual states weren't used on foreign territory in recent years, for example in Libya and Syria. The united leadership totally won't lead to more efficient and frequent use of the military.
- member states agreed to improve their military cooperation because they don't want to cooperate militarily abroad.
Making this post because I'm really surprised to see another post like yours, not because I don't like the idea of European army.
|
what is even meant by 'aggressive' in this context? If an African nation says it is overwhelmed with threats and wants Europe to assist comparable to say a robust UN mandate, is that aggressive?
|
That depends on who you ask, the powers backing the nation's government or the powers backing the threats (or "threats").
I would use the broadest definition possible, but obviously each poster can define it differently. I would consider real peacekeeping as aggressive too because you go somewhere to kill the guys who kill the innocents, but someone else could say it's not aggression if your cause is just or something like that.
|
Guys, lets not beat around the bush. We all know why this is happening. It's because Russia invaded Ukraine and Ukraine is not part of NATO. Right now, Russia is probing around the airspace of Finland and Sweden and has been successively holding massive miltary exercises next to Finland and Estonia. Nobody knows why they are doing this, but with Trump around and UK leaving, it seems expedient to increase co-operation and preparedness. Just in case.
|
On November 16 2017 03:56 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 02:43 Broetchenholer wrote:
Allright, so let's assume Europe wants to build an army that listens to europe and not to the individual states. The individual states lose their armies in the process. Europe reduces overall spending, troopsize etc and now the EU is a real diplomatic and military power. Let's not argue for a second what that would mean for the individual states, where is the leap in logic that the new Europe will now act aggressively and use the army? Germany rebuild it's army and since then has not started any wars, the ones it participated in where broad coalitions based on international right. The existance of an army is not the guarantee for an aggressive imperialistic policy. Europe could significantly reduce troopcount and spending and still be more capable then before. I don't think this will happen in the next 30 years, but i also can't see why it would be automatically worse then 25 nations having their own armies they don't use. 23 members of one of the three biggest economies in the world signed the agreement, 20 of them agreed to significantly increase their military spending (3 already spend their 2%). Your conclusions are: - Europe will reduce overall military spending, - less tropps (because?), - the army won't be used aggressively in peacekeeping and "peacekeeping" in Africa and the Middle East, just like the armies of individual states weren't used on foreign territory in recent years, for example in Libya and Syria. The united leadership totally won't lead to more efficient and frequent use of the military. - member states agreed to improve their military cooperation because they don't want to cooperate militarily abroad. Making this post because I'm really surprised to see another post like yours, not because I don't like the idea of European army.
- Europe will reduce overall military spending: with a combined effort, nations don't have to all invest in the same areas. not everyone needs to build airplanes, not everyone needs to have landing vessels. The bangbangbang for the buck of european countries is far lower then for example the US.
- less troops: one is stronger then many. if you can consolidate all armies into one, you can determine how many you need overall and go with that number. this number might go down, because, as you said the third most powerful nation might not fear as much as 20 lesser nations.
- aggressive intervention is differently defined by people. some conflicts are tricky to call but i am actually quite happy with the conflicts my country has participated in. Syria or iraq or libya might not have been positive but why is that an argument against a combined army. Do you believe England would have invaded Iraq if france and germany could have blocked it? creating a stronger army, or a more federal army, or a better structured army, or a better communicating army does not equalize a more often used army. The same way the existance of nuclear weapons has not automaically lead to the end of the world.
- and yes, member states can agree to improve military cooperation without actually wanting to use it aggressively or abroad. The same way unions were not implemented to get union officials into a unfireable position.
|
I admire your optimism Broetchenholer. I don't think military spending in going to go down any time soon. Rather, countries will increase their spending over the next few years to attempt to reach the 2% goal. The additional funds will be poured into the common EU army. Over the years the integration will continue, and all the way through its completion and spending will be maintained at 2% unless there is some serious social/political uproar against that kind of spending (as 2% is far too much for a purely defensive force once it starts being spent efficiently). Then, as countries spend so much on defense and the funding is spent efficiently the army will be of considerable size/efficiency and politicians will find uses for the over-sized military (a "if what you have is a hammer, problems are nails" kind of thing).
And if you (you, the reader in a general sense) disagree with this, then I can assume you won't be joining the inevitable protests, and will thus be responsible for letting it happen. Thanks a lot.
|
On November 16 2017 18:14 a_flayer wrote:
Then, as countries spend so much on defense and the funding is spent efficiently the army will be of considerable size/efficiency and politicians will find uses for the over-sized military (a "if what you have is a hammer, problems are nails" kind of thing).
Ignoring the fact that this is a completely baseless assumption, I still think it's a much better situation than the alternative of not having an army and getting facerolled by anyone who attacks.
But have fun protesting.
|
On November 16 2017 04:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Guys, lets not beat around the bush. We all know why this is happening. It's because Russia invaded Ukraine and Ukraine is not part of NATO. Right now, Russia is probing around the airspace of Finland and Sweden and has been successively holding massive miltary exercises next to Finland and Estonia. Nobody knows why they are doing this, but with Trump around and UK leaving, it seems expedient to increase co-operation and preparedness. Just in case.
That does seem like a good idea. The memory of Stalin's reign in Russia is still there for many Europeans & Russians, so it makes good sense to take sensible precautions
|
So.. why do we want EU army again? Is NATO not enough? Sure, Trump is a retard but he isn't going to be a president forever.
|
For starters: being more cost efficient.
A good thing with the strain on social security systems put on by demographics and further rising environmental costs of living.
|
NATO benefits from the creation and maintenance of an EU army, so I don't see the problem.
|
On November 18 2017 07:05 sc-darkness wrote:
So.. why do we want EU army again? Is NATO not enough? Sure, Trump is a retard but he isn't going to be a president forever.
I wouldn’t count on the US for much in the next 15-20 years. Our demographics are going to get real crazy right up to 2040 and we got a lot of shit to figure out.
|
On November 16 2017 04:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Guys, lets not beat around the bush. We all know why this is happening. It's because Russia invaded Ukraine and Ukraine is not part of NATO. Right now, Russia is probing around the airspace of Finland and Sweden and has been successively holding massive miltary exercises next to Finland and Estonia. Nobody knows why they are doing this, but with Trump around and UK leaving, it seems expedient to increase co-operation and preparedness. Just in case.
Fairly sure that a big part of the reason is that US-outer-politics have been disastrous on many levels in the last 10 years and the USA aren't that well received in many European countries anymore.
And it's likely going to be about guarding EU-interests, not just in terms of defensiveness against Russia, but also f.e. for interventions in critically destabilized 3rd world countries.
But I agree that the increased Russian activity is likely also a factor. That part is kinda covered by NATO and the fact that Russia's military spending is less than that of Germany and France combined though.
|
Finland and Sweden are not members of NATO.
|
European army I don't see it. All those different languages,it wont help in combat situations.
Thing with defense spending is also that countries want to spend there where it also helps their own economy,either directly or indirectly by agreement,which I think is a big reason why it will be difficult to get countries to fully commit and share the power to decide what and where to buy.
Joint operations yes,but they do that already within the nato. I think nato is fine for now as organization for europes defence and I don't see how a European army would be beneficial at this point for any of the countries involved.
|
On November 19 2017 01:41 pmh wrote:
European army I don't see it. All those different languages,it wont help in combat situations.
Thing with defense spending is also that countries want to spend there where it also helps their own economy,either directly or indirectly by agreement,which I think is a big reason why it will be difficult to get countries to fully commit and share the power to decide what and where to buy.
Joint operations yes,but they do that already within the nato. I think nato is fine for now as organization for europes defence and I don't see how a European army would be beneficial at this point for any of the countries involved.
Because joint Nato operations require a lot of countries to agree on something.
The situation on the Crimea was probably a pretty big wake up call for the EU that we are not at the point where we don't need armies anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
