Is an EU army not a good thing?

[Snowy111]

With China, US and Russia growing increasingly powerful, and the worlds resources depleting, I think we are in danger of being picked off in some way, if we are “on our own”. Not in the next 30 years perhaps but beyond that. I know brexiteers cite the EU army as a reason to leave, but would we not be safer allied militarily to our closest neighbours?

amp.ft.com/content/ff92106c-e8e0-11e9-85f4-d00e5018f061?segmentID=24f917f5-d77e-c653-da9d-130af278fd26&__twitter_impression=true

Can only think that trump wants one less superpower to worry about . But is he our biggest threat? Russia, China and the US all seem to think they can do whatever they want, invade countries, human rights abuses. The EU is going to be much less powerful without is and I’m not sure that’s a good thing.

I think there would need to be one EU army from the start and train together, not train in separate countries then be expected to suddenly work as a team. Why do you think this would even be the case, though? They would not be expected to suddenly work as a team, there would be a careful strategy of co-operation, processes and training and a PLAN!

I'm for it, personally. What shape it takes and how it fits with and works alongside existing structures is all still up for discussion. But as a principle I'm in favour.

Has anyone heard of NATO?

NATO leaves Europe reliant on the support and involvement of the USA. Trump has already threatened to pull out of it.

Trump's issue with NATO is that the majority of EU members do not pay the 2% of GDP that they have agreed to under the treaty: neither France nor Germany do, for example, whereas iirc Latvia, Lithuania, Poland etc, with their less solid economies, manage to.

Trump's problem with NATO or, rather, vice versa, is that he has said that he would trust Putin more than he would his own military and the CIA. He also appears to believe the US military is available for hire and will deploy anywhere in return for payment or purchase of US weapons.

And he (figuratively) blows our 'independent' nuclear deterrent out of the water, the next time we turn up at USN King's Bay and ask for fresh missiles and he says, How much? And we say, Nothing, it was a deal negotiated by Macmillan and Kennedy in 1961, and he says, Worst Deal In History, etc.

Oh no, not more expense for the British taxpayers! Common sense says, as all countries possess armed forces of some kind, we cooperate and work together with a joint strategic strategy, rather than start from scratch.

Hefzi France pays 2.3% of GDP Latvia and Lithuania only 2%. I’d not be believing what comes out of Trumps mouth.

Cherry not according to NATO they don't (it's their pdf for 2012-19- can't link) and also not according to the French government either www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/french-foreign-policy/security-disarmament-and-non-proliferation/the-institutional-framework-of-france-s-action/france-and-nato/

They have pledged to increase it - they promised again to meet this in 2014 and still haven't yet made it. Both of these links, and NATO's 2018-19 report also, as well as various academic papers on security studies (as well as Stoletenberg himself) put France's contribution at 1.83-1.95%, so I would be interested to know where your 2.3% figure is from.

Yet world bank data gives France at 2.3%. How odd.

(Sorry - I've just realised that that sounds snide: that wasn't my intention at all- I'm genuinely interested, not least because in a previous life, I was an economist at NATO hq . As a result, I am well aware that there's lies, damned lies and statistics )

Not snide at all. Interesting variability though. I work with lots of statistics too but not around military so get that all data needs a narrative.

Ah, in that case, it's calculated by SIPRI iirc, and their methodology works somewhat differently: unless it's not using their research any more.

Strange that the government of France wouldn't use those figures - though admittedly, they accept themselves they do fall short, so I guess it's to do with the methodology of the WB study. (Unless it isn't SIPRI any more, in which case, it's really just odd )

But that's bad politics and bad diplomacy on the part of the French, whatever the reason - they should use the WB data to go for Trump on principle

Indeed. Anything to minimise Trumps influence....

I personally suspect a day will come in the not so distant future when we're going to wish we were part of an 'EU Army', with a resurgent Russia and an increasingly isolationist USA.

Totally agree.

In the ideal EU army, the British would do the fighting, the French would be in charge of the catering and the Italians would design the uniforms.

In the nightmare EU army, .....etc.

NATO, even before Trump, had passed its sell by date so, with NATO blessing the EU were making some sensible proposals to pick up where it left off so they could mobilise more effectively to trouble spots. Really? Not that I'd heard. There is tension between NATO and the EU. The EU likes to think it can do what NATO can, but there is no way that it has the staff, the resources or the infrastructure to do so. Op Atalanta, which was run by the EU out of Northwood, had to cover up the NATO insignia when they gave a press conference to make it look like an EU HQ, as opposed to a NATO one. The EU wants to piggyback onto NATO.

The EUMS (military staff) is based on NATO in its structure.

If NATO has passed its sell by date, then why are there nations still wanting to accede? Why do the allies want the Defence Planning Process to continue? Why do the Allies still pay in (and yes they do, to fund the International Staff and the costs associated with HQ NATO and SHAPE)? Why spaff all that money on a shiny swooshy new HQ that NATO is already in danger of outgrowing?

Cherry › pdf › pdfpublications › 20190315sgar2018-en is the document you want, especially the appendices, which will give you all the up to date stats on who spends what.e

Hefzi Trump was making the point that Gates made when Bush was POTUS, and that Obama made at the Wales summit. Trump just made it obvious as opposed to being diplomatic. Dh was most amused to see macron, Merkel et al being told to cough up in front of the new HQ when Trump came to Brussels to open it (plus lots of the IS got the day off if they were below DASG level).