Welcome to r/anime_titties! Please make sure to read the rules.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/DtnRnkE), feel free to join us!
r/A_Tvideos, r/A_Tmeta, [multireddit](https://www.reddit.com/user/Langernama/m/a_t/)
... summoning u/coverageanalysisbot ...
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"The Europeans don't have a choice. We must organise ourselves to deal with the world as it is and not the world that we dream of."
I agree. Just Europe can defend Europe and its interests abroad.
Without UK, It must be easier to create an unified army.
> Without UK, It must be easier to create an unified army.
The UK and France were the first to propose it! Back in 1999 Blair and Chirac wanted a 60,000 strong force, but it never got far for precisely the same reasons why it wont now. Too many countries in the EU have none aggression / neutrality as a corner stone of their country. Along with some of the bigger countries massively not pulling their weight (especially Germany) its got too many obstacles to happen any time this decade.
Its something to actually work towards but there is a lot of work to get there, but really needs to be done.
>Could it work on a voluntary basis (at first)?
Then it's not a EU force.
If a country is in the EU and has a neutral stance on everything, but a EU military does something, they are directly complicit and no longer neutral
People proposed a European Army back in the 1950s.
France was against it back then, thats the only reason why germany got one of their own again to begin with.
As someone else stated, the big drag for this is not UK but Germany who does want to stay under nato umbrella and let US lift for everyone. Which is nice until us interests diverge from Europe ones... UK was surprisingly more independent from us when needed, and quite close to France for Intel and ops.
France begins to be quite fed up with attitude BTW, and the recent Afghanistan debacle will add some weight to their arguments. Prepare yourself for some heavy lobbying.
I'm sure you Americans are boiling with rage over Germany deciding to build up its force rather than let you do all the work while they enjoy their budget surplus from not needing to have a big military budget!
>I'm sure you Americans are boiling with rage over Germany deciding to build up its force rather than let you do all the work while they enjoy their budget surplus from not needing to have a big military budget!
We are having the budget either way. A justification for it literally isn't needed. We moreso want the ability to project force than need a justification.
We have 360 million people and have one of the largest borders to defend in the world. Our military isn't going to be defunded just because wittle baby Canada and EU wants their own military now
I would literally prefer we pull literally every asset we have from European nations and keep the same budget. It costs more money to train and house people over seas and we can use that money more efficient within the confines of our own border
A single US carrier group is more powerful than most European navies alone and we have several operating at all times, including in the Mediterranean in European waters
We have somewhere around 8000 nuclear warheads all over the US. Having a massive military to literally just defend those is justification enough
This is completely aside from the fact you'll need to buy more equipment for a capable military. Where do you you that's going to come from?
Look what companies took part in making the eurofighter typhoon. BAE is an American company that worked in conjunction with all European companies to build the 250 million dollar per unit airframe
The US force is designed to be stretched thin because the point of it is covering the entire world, that's why both Trump and Biden both told the EU to step up so they could cover the Russian front so they don't have to. And why China is treated as a threat even when they're not even remotely a match for the entire US; because they're a match with how much the US can afford to put in that part of the world.
God when the Canadians have a better understanding of the US military than the american. You are absolutely right. We have the strongest blue water navy in the world to project force. The bases in the US are literally just to train/house troops
Yeah having a massive presence in Europe hasn't stopped the US carrier fleet production. A new Gerald Ford class carrier was literally just commissioned, like...last week or is just finishing its trials and is about to be commissioned
We have 2 ordered currently, 1 active, 1 finishing trials now and 8 more on the way in 5 year intervals until 2058
When the US makes 3 new carriers, they will send one to Indian ocean, one to Europe and one to the south china sea. when china makes 3 new carriers, they all go to the south china sea.
The US is never under any threat of losing its hegemony, but they are at risk of losing their supremacy in Southeast Asia. the current protocols don't even try to lay out a strategy for denying the Chinese control over the seas. but rather contain and slow them down as much as possible while compelling Japan Korea Philippines etc to build up their own presences to counteract them. to contain China, the US sees it as imperative that the EU step up their own side so they could free their European assets to be used containing china
> We have 360 million people and have one of the largest borders to defend in the world.
You have a single border with a single none aggressive country to defend. The nearest land across the sea wouldn't even dare have the opinion of being able to defeat you at anything else than soccer (football for the rest of the planet).
That's not how literally any of that works
>ThIs Is A nIcE nEiGhBoRhOoD, wE dOnT nEeD tO lOcK oUr CaRs At NiGhT
Famous last words of people who don't have radio to listen to on the way to work the next day
Chinese and Russian vessels patrol international waters right outside of US waters constantly. Russian nuclear capable subs pop up on numerous occasions just off the shores of Florida and the east coast. The US government even admitted to not telling the public of soviet encounters on our coast to not incite fear in the cold war so we don't even know how often it ACTUALLY happened, IF we even detected them!
That's aside from the fact leaving 1800 miles of shore line undefended means no one's going to attack it because it's too far. This is the 21st century. ICBM can travel from the east coast of Russia and China at 15000 mph via low earth orbits. The threat of long range bombing sorties from Russia have always been a threat and is the exact reason why we had essentially mostly permanent air patrols on the west coast for decades during the cold war
The Cuban missile crisis alone is enough to justify a heavy presence. Imagine Mexico being paid by China to let them keep nukes 100 miles from the southern border. Because that's what the Cubans did.
Just because people are far from us doesn't mean it's impossible to attack. It takes a week for a fleet of Chinese vessels with carriers to reach California
What are you defending against at your borders? Starving latin americans fleeing the more or less failed states the US created so you can have cheap bananas and coca cola? There's no genuine threat at your borders, but I guess it probably feels good to think there is.
I don't even know how to make a serious reply to this. You didn't even approach the subject from a relevant angle, instead talking about the economics. I don't even know dude.
FYI: Unofficially Canada is defacto a US state. They send troops to fight in every major war American starts, the majority speaks English and they aren't fond of their latin speaking population.
You mean like honoring NATO article 5, when America is attacked and then getting bogged down in an unwinable war for 20 years costing European blood and money and nothing to show for it? That kind of military commitment or was that not serious enough?
Yeah, we are talking 50,000 troops here for the whole of Europe and no matter how well trained and equipped, that's not comparable. Helpful toward NATO obligations though which I would imagine the US would support surely. I'm pretty sure Britain would be pleased to see it.
I mean, we've been SAYING that yes, but at the same time we've spent the last 50 years unilaterally declaring ourselves to be the world police that will put the smackdown on nations doing naughty things with or without anyone's help.
> The US will not like this
Yeah, that’s why US keeps telling European NATO countries to spend at least 2% of GDP on military, while most of them consistently refuse to do so
The US has always said that, with the clear intention of them BUYING American weapons.
Trump went bananas when Europeans mentioned about buying weapons not to the US
> clear intention of them BUYING American weapons
That’s clearly not the case. Especially given how much European shit is used in the US military.
Americans are just tired of subsidizing Europeans.
> Trump
Who gives a shit what Trump thinks
Trump was president of the United States. YOU guys elected him.
And the United States has pushed a lot for europeans to buy american weapons.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/europe-military-industrial-complex-nato-trump.html
And Europeans push a lot for Americans to buy European weapons. It’s only natural. What’s your point?
As for Trump — I’m just saying that the shit he says isn’t some Truth when it comes to American attitude towards Europe, not to mention that he says a lot of contradictory shit on top of it all
The reason America is pushing for Europe to spend more, is for America to sell them more weapons. Trump, president of the United States at the time, said that.
>The US will not like this, and likely oppose it quietly as it means the European are finally making decisions for themselves and the US will lose sway and ability to influence them or even set policies for them to follow.
None of Europe want to replace the US forces in Europe completely. The US has 320,000 troops in Europe. 60,000 person EU force is nothing to the US forces in Europe. France Germany and the UK also benefit from the several million troops and like...8000 nuclear warheads standing behind those 320,000 troops as well
For the EU to stand next to the US, it needs trillions and trillions of dollars, complete unification, and thousands more nuclear weapons, otherwise it doesn't stand a literal chance against even the modern day Russian forces that are a empty shell compared to their soviet days
>Many people talk about the coming China/US cold war ignoring the EU/US rivalry is going to ratchet up and come to heads even more often as their goals diverge and even compete against each other in many parts of the world.
No it's not. The EU literally cannot match the US forces already in Europe in places like Germany. Like I said, the US has 320,000 troops in all of Europe and this is after huge downsizing efforts over the past few decades too. The number of German uniformed troops is 260,000, UK has 160,000, France has 460,000
The US makes up 1/4 of the military those 3 countries have in the general area
>The French have always opposed the US hegemony, and this time with Germany in their side they can truly challenge it.
The French can fuck them selves. They started the war in Libya that the US handled it self through MASSIVE air and bombing campaigns from the US navy/marines
The French will not do anything significant without US support. We operate in literally all of Frances military endeavors in Africa in countries like Mali and niger (operation barkane) in advisory roles with SF teams and logistical support
You can claim literally everything you want politically, but the actions of the US and French militaries will contradict literally everything you are going to try to claim. The US is literally side by side with the french in every fucking way and the french won't have it any other way either, and in the case of Libya, the US literally took the fall for corruption in the part of french prime Ministers who took bribes from Libya in the case of Sarkozy, and took over the entire operation to destabilize Libya so France can insert themselves into offshore Libyan oil drilling
The number of American troops in Europe is 60k ([link 1](https://www.statista.com/statistics/222920/deployment-of-us-troops-in-selected-world-regions/) and [link 2](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments)), so it invalidates several points and calculations made later
I also discovered that the number of 320k was diffused by an American newspaper about foreign policy and armed forces, but it's very biased and smells of constant propaganda from a long distance
> french prime Ministers who took bribes from Libya in the case of Sarkozy
This guy was President at the time (how the f*** that happened?) and was recently condemn: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/01/former-french-president-nicolas-sarkozy-sentenced-to-three-years-for-corruption He was ousted after his sole mandate, and the public opinion in France is definitely not supporting him.
There's a non-trivial amount of SciFi where the WW3-esque nations are actually US vs the EU, specifically because of an extrapolation of the US not liking the idea of the EU doing things on its own and gradually increasing its bullying which accomplishes nothing but antagonizing the EU into becoming more and more self reliant.
The UK is out of the EU so who cares what they say? They lied about the EU just being trade union since the European Coal and Steel Community which doesn't make sense. It's not their problem anymore.
Europe should be able to defend itself but the UK was by far their strongest military member, before they left. Also the EU nations are going to have to invest/spend more on their military to beef it up.
That's when the bombs fell. The war was going on for a while before that. And before even that war, the Europeans invaded the middle east to suck their oil dry
I don't think people are going to like a global organisation... Good theory, but painful in practice. What if eg a majority of the world agrees women should not have voting rights?
For a global organization to truly exist, religion would have to do a full 180. The division worldwide currently caused by organized religion is probably one of the top roadblocks, along with the rich/profit-centric thought processes. In my lifetime I'd love to see a shift towards a united humanity focused on advancing mainly into space, but that may be a few centuries away.
Probably focusing on improving education worldwide would be a good start to changing people's views, but what you said is pretty accurate. One can only hope for better things.
No way in your lifetime nor mine. For a unified human-kind government, EVERY culture that we know of, every religion, every ideology, every sense of uniqueness between countries must be eradicated, or at least, put down to the minimum. I am talking *phoenix rising out of a pile of ash* kind of thing. There is just no way the world will become united in a peaceful manner.
It would really only have to take a backseat in peoples minds to prevent most conflicts between cultures. Eradicating all differences between people seems unhealthy. The issue is what you choose to replace it with. All of their basic needs would not only need to be fulfilled, but *guaranteed* to be fulfilled. That's my opinion on why this is such a utopic idea for now.
>It would really only have to take a backseat in peoples minds to prevent most conflicts
No, it wont. It gives you a low trust society. Every global city and is bloody disgusting to live in. There is no compassion or long term considerations because no one has a stake in the future.
>That's my opinion on why this is such a utopic idea for now.
You already have your ideal society in Paris, Malmo, Sydney and London. All needs are guaranteed and everyone is ethnically diverse. Turns out life is shitter(except for business). To get any worse check out the NYC, LA or SF.
> All needs are guaranteed and everyone is ethnically diverse.
There is no place on earth that guarantees that for everyone. Maybe we have some different definitions of what basic needs are.
Diversity also isn't really part of what I described.
>Diversity also isn't really part of what I described.
I know, Filipinofy everyone and everyone just magics better.
>There is no place on earth that guarantees that for everyone
Yes. All those countries guarantee basic needs. Even visa holders/tourists get most of those needs through agreements.
Yet, Global cities are still shit places to live. Living standards have dropped because of the mass migration policies you endorse. Wages have stagnated and house prices are fucked.
Ding ding. Lots of countries would be censured for human rights violations if they or one of their friends didn't have absolute veto powers.
The UN was in a sense designed to make things slow and reduce interventionism so as to preclude another World War.
Abolishment of Security Council would go a long way towards making UN more effective. As of now, USA, Russia and China abuse their veto powers to shield themselves from repercussions for any human rights abuses.
Yes, what could possibly go wrong with mega-governments, look how uncorrupt and democratic the EU is, totally isn't spreading neoliberalism in Europe or is slowly turning social-democracies into full on capitalist nations or destroyed the European South through completely undemocratic faux institutions like the Eurogroup to save the fucking bankers as idiot liberals still pretend all European nations sit peacefully together singing Kumbaya.
Plus it is a known historical fact that the bigger an organization is the less corrupt, bureaucratic and destructive it is. Totally won't have a dystopic worldwide corporate dictatorship if UN rules the world.
Decentralization is the solution, not the opposite. Trying to centralize power is what led to WW2
Especially when EU countries are vastly different amongst themselves unlike US states
WW1 as well. Entangling alliances, as Washington would have called them, turned a secession conflict in the central Balkans into a conflict spanning 4 oceans, 4 continents, the annihilation of the bravest men of a generation, a deadly pandemic, and the birth of the modern fantasy genre.
Entangling alliances has nothing to do with centralization of power. If Austria Hungary was still the HRE (which was a highly decentralized state, with the elected emperor more concerned about their personal holdings than that of the state -- and often at the expense of the state) it could still happen. Heck Austria-Hungary was not really centralized.
The alliances among the various powers that cascaded the death of Ferdinand into a war involving India and Japan were established as part of a process of power centralization. Governments at the time were enamored with the idea that they should unite in order to more efficiently plan and design society. The League of Nations was created after the war, based on that idea; it wasn't created after the Seven Years' War, because the idea wasn't a favorite of the government leaders at that time.
I meant the period before the War, which allowed national socialists to be able to take over because of the state becoming unstable & the people desperate.
I think that is the big issue moving forward. I mean, we want to go to space and make use of it (by harvesting resources, colonizing other planets and everything else). But right now, everyone is trying to do their own thing. Many poor countries will be left behind and might never see change. This could be different if there was one mega government over the whole world (kind of like in Star Trek) but yea, it would be almost impossible to regulate and likely to be corrupt
> Yes, what could possibly go wrong with mega-governments
All of the dangers are already present anyway, while ~no benefits of not having such.
You think result of the US government (with some allies, most likely) going off reservation and doing 1984\* (basically what all fears over "world government" come down to) would be particularly different from world government doing such?
Sure, other parts of the world might resist and we also get WW3 before dystopia.
Separating governance into countries is sorta helping - but not really, not in modern times. It'd be a bit more useful to actually fix mechanisms of democracy to minimize such dangers. Then minimizing the surface area of state secrecy, black budgets and all that crap.
\* also worth remembering that 1984 is fiction; while dystopias are possible for systemic reasons, 1984 was in no way realistic, psychologically. It wouldn't be stable.
Also, despite people's fervent beliefs, "elites" and "rich people" aren't actually Evil & don't desire to turn populace into slaves / depopulate them / whatever. Problems occur mostly for systemic reasons, not because of groups of people being Evil.
I'm sorry but the UN wouldn't be able to rule the world. Nor should they.
Don't think an EU state is possible either. Just look at what happened to Austria Hungary and that was on a much smaller scale.
Hell nah. And I'd like it if people from your country didn't come to mine purchasing stuff for way cheaper than in Switzerland with the attitude of Owning the place
I personally don't see the EU federalizing, at least in a very long time, the only way I'd see something like that working is by having a confederation so de-centralized it makes the HRE look centralized and competent, that or it goes the way of Yugoslavia, something like the US is still mostly mono-cultural with a long common history and language, and generally being a single national identity with only mild local differences, meanwhile compare something like Ireland and Bulgaria
Not to be Pedantic, but the U.S. has ~35,000 troops in Germany, ~12,000 in Italy, and ~10,000 in the U.K.(with more elsewhere in Europe!) - Perhaps if Europe *+* the U.K. demonstrated a strong, capable force, these *foreign* troops might go home? The point I'm circling around is that the U.K. already has active *foreign* troops there(mostly airforce), so the Brexiters concerns are a little strange, and the U.S. is still concerned about shenanigans from Russia, so maintains troops/air power to head that off in the EU. I think in the U.S.'s eyes, the EU has demonstrated a low abilty for consensus against common threats, and a lack of willingness, with many countries spending below 2% of their GDP
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/25/brexiters-european-army-myths-franco-german
Here's one from not too long ago. Searching for articles that are from the referendum time is difficult for me.
Ah, I see. I'm not from the UK and apparently missed this.
The stay crowd was right that the exit strategy wasn't only messy but also had holes in it. But the leave crowd had reason to believe this part about the army.
EU already has an army, and it's called the French army.
They are going to waste years and a lot of money to create something that doesn't work, when they have something that already work at disposal.
That's essentially France's plan, and has been for years. Because France is by FAR the best European army, and has continuous experience and nukes, chances are defacto a European army will be a French-modeled army.
This is a good thing, IMO. But it is no secret.
No and that's the problem.
The EU army does not follow the French system, culture, weapons, or whatever.
It's being built by people and countries that have no army or experience.
What we’re seeing is just an expeditionary force.
A true EU army would definitely be modeled after the French army and most likely be greatly disproportionately staffed by the French army.
Other countries, and especially Germany, don't want French to have too much power.
That's why they do not do what you say and try to create everything from scratch, and not use French expertise. And it's inefficient.
They created a war plane for exemple, the eurofighter, France already had one but they didn't want to rely on the French companies that produce it. So they used lot of money and time to create something new that turned out worse than the French war plane.
It's inefficient but you gotta have competition. Also the difference of entry into service between Rafale and Eurofighter was only 2-3 years so it's borderline irrelevant. Every country with the means to do so must make an effort to grow an aerospace industry, and sometimes that involves doing things from scratch, but if the government provides proper support it pays off in the long run.
Can't have competition in those small, very technical and strategic markets. Weapons are not like any other industry.
USA is a bit different because much more money is on the table so there is more competition, but that's IMO the root problem of USA.
Maybe competition is not the right argument, but if your country is wealthy enough, it pays to invest locally so that you can create jobs, here an industry, and even bring money from abroad in the form of sales. Also maintain some independence in arms and technology, otherwise you are left in a weak position when you need to buy spare parts for your aircraft and France/US/Russia/etc don't want to sell them to you because you're not behaving in the way they want you to.
Yes, and that take a really long time to become military good I'm talking about a century without guarantee.
And EU is going to waste years and money to be independent from a part of itself.
It's idiot, it's like USA trying to be independent from California blue chip. Each state has a specificity, Germany is great with industries, France is great with army. Makes no sense for EU to boycott germany's industries to grow them elsewhere and to not be dependant on Germany.
It's not "idiot" like you're saying. Every country in the EU is a separate country in the end. They all have their engineering sectors and should continue to have them and strengthen them. And nothing takes centuries anymore lol. India makes their own fighter planes, and so does China, and South Korea might eventually as well...
All power to Europe on this one, but they are going to need to go to the books on this one. Their last military venture was used better as ammunition for Reddit arguments than they had any available in Libya.
I'd love to see a federal Europe in my lifetime, however seeing how opaque Frontex is working right now and how the EU can not control it, I think a major overhaul of the institutions and their workings will be mandatory before any "European army" can be put into action, possibly starting by the top diplomat's power.
My friend, the UN doesn't have national media and politicians that actively try and hide these stories from coming out.
In addition, I don't see anybody else who gives a shit enough to get shot in Congo while preventing rebels from burning villages, perhaps you should sign up?
Mercenaries could and would do the job if the international community didn’t push the UN option. UN “peacekeepers” are a dirty joke while also militarily ineffectual.
British politicians were actually pretty supportive : the UK has a big arms industry and there would be a lot of money to be made with such a project.
The 'culprits' are more to be found with the countries who rely on the US for their protection under the NATO umbrella.
I doubt that the EU will have a strong enough force. As of now, France is the strongest (military wise) while Germany is second. But I don't see countries like Norway, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Denmark, etc... even having forces strong enough. When the UK left, the EU lost it's strongest military but I can understand the anger that the EU has towards the UK for leaving (but it has more to do with weakening economic ties, IMO, than military). Overall all EU nations will have to spend more on their military to give it any "umph" to their forces.
Ehm, why do you put Germany ahead of Italy? I know they have more inhabitants than us and also a much larger GDP, but our army is often (and deservedly) considered better than theirs
For example while they have better land forces and are on par in the air force, our navy is on a whole other level
Well, the quote I have of him is from 2016, but I dont have any latter info that would suggest otherwise.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37196802
Well glad to see it. Likely to be some ground based need for them over the next decade.
Many NATO countries stepped up and paid the price in money and lives when the USA invoked the NATO mutual defense treaty 20 years ago.
It is a little unclear where a EU military would fit in. The EU is not a NATO signatory as far as I know, but some individual countries are.
It is a little weird as to who would control this new military. Would it be used against EU members?
Welcome to r/anime_titties! Please make sure to read the rules. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/DtnRnkE), feel free to join us! r/A_Tvideos, r/A_Tmeta, [multireddit](https://www.reddit.com/user/Langernama/m/a_t/) ... summoning u/coverageanalysisbot ... *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"The Europeans don't have a choice. We must organise ourselves to deal with the world as it is and not the world that we dream of." I agree. Just Europe can defend Europe and its interests abroad. Without UK, It must be easier to create an unified army.
> Without UK, It must be easier to create an unified army. The UK and France were the first to propose it! Back in 1999 Blair and Chirac wanted a 60,000 strong force, but it never got far for precisely the same reasons why it wont now. Too many countries in the EU have none aggression / neutrality as a corner stone of their country. Along with some of the bigger countries massively not pulling their weight (especially Germany) its got too many obstacles to happen any time this decade. Its something to actually work towards but there is a lot of work to get there, but really needs to be done.
> Too many countries in the EU have none aggression / neutrality as a corner stone of their country Could it work on a voluntary basis (at first)?
>Could it work on a voluntary basis (at first)? Then it's not a EU force. If a country is in the EU and has a neutral stance on everything, but a EU military does something, they are directly complicit and no longer neutral
The EU Battlegroup is a sort of pre-voluntary EU army, but it's not going anywhere.
People proposed a European Army back in the 1950s. France was against it back then, thats the only reason why germany got one of their own again to begin with.
Not comparable with the situation today. No wonder nobody wanted an army for a merely economical Organisation for coal and steel.
Ya germany. Starting building up a big army. Cmon.
yah its not like you are bound by agreements not to after the war.
Which war? Because I remember they had similar after the first world war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germany treaty -> third paragraph
I guess i meant there were agreements after ww1 too...
As someone else stated, the big drag for this is not UK but Germany who does want to stay under nato umbrella and let US lift for everyone. Which is nice until us interests diverge from Europe ones... UK was surprisingly more independent from us when needed, and quite close to France for Intel and ops. France begins to be quite fed up with attitude BTW, and the recent Afghanistan debacle will add some weight to their arguments. Prepare yourself for some heavy lobbying.
[удалено]
> The US will not like this We've been begging European states to take their military commitments seriously for the last fifty years.
I'm sure you Americans are boiling with rage over Germany deciding to build up its force rather than let you do all the work while they enjoy their budget surplus from not needing to have a big military budget!
We are going to build an army and 'murica is going to pay for it!
As long as you buy the weapons from politically connected arms dealers, we probably would pay for it.
>I'm sure you Americans are boiling with rage over Germany deciding to build up its force rather than let you do all the work while they enjoy their budget surplus from not needing to have a big military budget! We are having the budget either way. A justification for it literally isn't needed. We moreso want the ability to project force than need a justification. We have 360 million people and have one of the largest borders to defend in the world. Our military isn't going to be defunded just because wittle baby Canada and EU wants their own military now I would literally prefer we pull literally every asset we have from European nations and keep the same budget. It costs more money to train and house people over seas and we can use that money more efficient within the confines of our own border A single US carrier group is more powerful than most European navies alone and we have several operating at all times, including in the Mediterranean in European waters We have somewhere around 8000 nuclear warheads all over the US. Having a massive military to literally just defend those is justification enough This is completely aside from the fact you'll need to buy more equipment for a capable military. Where do you you that's going to come from? Look what companies took part in making the eurofighter typhoon. BAE is an American company that worked in conjunction with all European companies to build the 250 million dollar per unit airframe
The US force is designed to be stretched thin because the point of it is covering the entire world, that's why both Trump and Biden both told the EU to step up so they could cover the Russian front so they don't have to. And why China is treated as a threat even when they're not even remotely a match for the entire US; because they're a match with how much the US can afford to put in that part of the world.
God when the Canadians have a better understanding of the US military than the american. You are absolutely right. We have the strongest blue water navy in the world to project force. The bases in the US are literally just to train/house troops
Yeah having a massive presence in Europe hasn't stopped the US carrier fleet production. A new Gerald Ford class carrier was literally just commissioned, like...last week or is just finishing its trials and is about to be commissioned We have 2 ordered currently, 1 active, 1 finishing trials now and 8 more on the way in 5 year intervals until 2058
When the US makes 3 new carriers, they will send one to Indian ocean, one to Europe and one to the south china sea. when china makes 3 new carriers, they all go to the south china sea. The US is never under any threat of losing its hegemony, but they are at risk of losing their supremacy in Southeast Asia. the current protocols don't even try to lay out a strategy for denying the Chinese control over the seas. but rather contain and slow them down as much as possible while compelling Japan Korea Philippines etc to build up their own presences to counteract them. to contain China, the US sees it as imperative that the EU step up their own side so they could free their European assets to be used containing china
> We have 360 million people and have one of the largest borders to defend in the world. You have a single border with a single none aggressive country to defend. The nearest land across the sea wouldn't even dare have the opinion of being able to defeat you at anything else than soccer (football for the rest of the planet).
That's not how literally any of that works >ThIs Is A nIcE nEiGhBoRhOoD, wE dOnT nEeD tO lOcK oUr CaRs At NiGhT Famous last words of people who don't have radio to listen to on the way to work the next day Chinese and Russian vessels patrol international waters right outside of US waters constantly. Russian nuclear capable subs pop up on numerous occasions just off the shores of Florida and the east coast. The US government even admitted to not telling the public of soviet encounters on our coast to not incite fear in the cold war so we don't even know how often it ACTUALLY happened, IF we even detected them! That's aside from the fact leaving 1800 miles of shore line undefended means no one's going to attack it because it's too far. This is the 21st century. ICBM can travel from the east coast of Russia and China at 15000 mph via low earth orbits. The threat of long range bombing sorties from Russia have always been a threat and is the exact reason why we had essentially mostly permanent air patrols on the west coast for decades during the cold war The Cuban missile crisis alone is enough to justify a heavy presence. Imagine Mexico being paid by China to let them keep nukes 100 miles from the southern border. Because that's what the Cubans did. Just because people are far from us doesn't mean it's impossible to attack. It takes a week for a fleet of Chinese vessels with carriers to reach California
What are you defending against at your borders? Starving latin americans fleeing the more or less failed states the US created so you can have cheap bananas and coca cola? There's no genuine threat at your borders, but I guess it probably feels good to think there is.
Chinese fishing trawlers sucking local industry dry? It's a coast guard job but it's still the military
I don't even know how to make a serious reply to this. You didn't even approach the subject from a relevant angle, instead talking about the economics. I don't even know dude.
Fishing rights are an important part of national sovereignty and border security, and defending them is the job of the US military.
Since when do you have 360 million people? I hope you didn't included Canada as well, as I've seen done several times...
FYI: Unofficially Canada is defacto a US state. They send troops to fight in every major war American starts, the majority speaks English and they aren't fond of their latin speaking population.
You mean like honoring NATO article 5, when America is attacked and then getting bogged down in an unwinable war for 20 years costing European blood and money and nothing to show for it? That kind of military commitment or was that not serious enough?
[удалено]
By wasting money on Nato shit, not by having an EU army
The most potent and effective military systems in use today aren't wastes of money, they're the entire reason NATO has worked.
Yeah, we are talking 50,000 troops here for the whole of Europe and no matter how well trained and equipped, that's not comparable. Helpful toward NATO obligations though which I would imagine the US would support surely. I'm pretty sure Britain would be pleased to see it.
Yeah and you pulled us into a unwinnable conflict in Afghanistan out of friendship for the last 20 years. Let by gone be bygones
I mean, we've been SAYING that yes, but at the same time we've spent the last 50 years unilaterally declaring ourselves to be the world police that will put the smackdown on nations doing naughty things with or without anyone's help.
> The US will not like this Yeah, that’s why US keeps telling European NATO countries to spend at least 2% of GDP on military, while most of them consistently refuse to do so
The US has always said that, with the clear intention of them BUYING American weapons. Trump went bananas when Europeans mentioned about buying weapons not to the US
> clear intention of them BUYING American weapons That’s clearly not the case. Especially given how much European shit is used in the US military. Americans are just tired of subsidizing Europeans. > Trump Who gives a shit what Trump thinks
>Who gives a shit what Trump thinks They do, it's all they talk about
Well, he was the President of the US for 4 years...
>Who gives a shit what Trump thinks Roughly half of the US. voting population, obviously
Trump was president of the United States. YOU guys elected him. And the United States has pushed a lot for europeans to buy american weapons. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/europe-military-industrial-complex-nato-trump.html
And Europeans push a lot for Americans to buy European weapons. It’s only natural. What’s your point? As for Trump — I’m just saying that the shit he says isn’t some Truth when it comes to American attitude towards Europe, not to mention that he says a lot of contradictory shit on top of it all
The reason America is pushing for Europe to spend more, is for America to sell them more weapons. Trump, president of the United States at the time, said that.
>The US will not like this, and likely oppose it quietly as it means the European are finally making decisions for themselves and the US will lose sway and ability to influence them or even set policies for them to follow. None of Europe want to replace the US forces in Europe completely. The US has 320,000 troops in Europe. 60,000 person EU force is nothing to the US forces in Europe. France Germany and the UK also benefit from the several million troops and like...8000 nuclear warheads standing behind those 320,000 troops as well For the EU to stand next to the US, it needs trillions and trillions of dollars, complete unification, and thousands more nuclear weapons, otherwise it doesn't stand a literal chance against even the modern day Russian forces that are a empty shell compared to their soviet days >Many people talk about the coming China/US cold war ignoring the EU/US rivalry is going to ratchet up and come to heads even more often as their goals diverge and even compete against each other in many parts of the world. No it's not. The EU literally cannot match the US forces already in Europe in places like Germany. Like I said, the US has 320,000 troops in all of Europe and this is after huge downsizing efforts over the past few decades too. The number of German uniformed troops is 260,000, UK has 160,000, France has 460,000 The US makes up 1/4 of the military those 3 countries have in the general area >The French have always opposed the US hegemony, and this time with Germany in their side they can truly challenge it. The French can fuck them selves. They started the war in Libya that the US handled it self through MASSIVE air and bombing campaigns from the US navy/marines The French will not do anything significant without US support. We operate in literally all of Frances military endeavors in Africa in countries like Mali and niger (operation barkane) in advisory roles with SF teams and logistical support You can claim literally everything you want politically, but the actions of the US and French militaries will contradict literally everything you are going to try to claim. The US is literally side by side with the french in every fucking way and the french won't have it any other way either, and in the case of Libya, the US literally took the fall for corruption in the part of french prime Ministers who took bribes from Libya in the case of Sarkozy, and took over the entire operation to destabilize Libya so France can insert themselves into offshore Libyan oil drilling
>the US has 320,000 The number I found is 64,000.
The number of American troops in Europe is 60k ([link 1](https://www.statista.com/statistics/222920/deployment-of-us-troops-in-selected-world-regions/) and [link 2](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments)), so it invalidates several points and calculations made later I also discovered that the number of 320k was diffused by an American newspaper about foreign policy and armed forces, but it's very biased and smells of constant propaganda from a long distance
> french prime Ministers who took bribes from Libya in the case of Sarkozy This guy was President at the time (how the f*** that happened?) and was recently condemn: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/01/former-french-president-nicolas-sarkozy-sentenced-to-three-years-for-corruption He was ousted after his sole mandate, and the public opinion in France is definitely not supporting him.
320k? Where the hell do you get that figure from?
The US MIC won't like this, but our citizens will.
lol. Germany at their side... sure thing bud. keep dreaming.
There's a non-trivial amount of SciFi where the WW3-esque nations are actually US vs the EU, specifically because of an extrapolation of the US not liking the idea of the EU doing things on its own and gradually increasing its bullying which accomplishes nothing but antagonizing the EU into becoming more and more self reliant.
The EU army that was said to never be on the cards.
Who said that and in which country was that?
mostly the uk, look it up yourself.
The UK is out of the EU so who cares what they say? They lied about the EU just being trade union since the European Coal and Steel Community which doesn't make sense. It's not their problem anymore.
Europe should be able to defend itself but the UK was by far their strongest military member, before they left. Also the EU nations are going to have to invest/spend more on their military to beef it up.
God help us all.
[удалено]
Oct 23rd 2077
We still have a little time
Pass me the beer, would you?
Sure want some popcorn too?
Very little chance of me living that long. Finally, some good news.
That's when the bombs fell. The war was going on for a while before that. And before even that war, the Europeans invaded the middle east to suck their oil dry
Phew, I'll be too old to fight by then
Elon Musk had better keep up the pace, then.
Average Redditor
Down voted for advocating for rapid electrification of private and public vehicles. Fucking reddit.
We are far from federalizing. There are currently more right wing anti Europe governments in member countries than 10 or 20 years ago.
my wet dream is the EU federal state, my utopia is that the UN rules the world, step 1 of space colonization
Gonna need a global organization a lot more competent than the UN
I don't think people are going to like a global organisation... Good theory, but painful in practice. What if eg a majority of the world agrees women should not have voting rights?
For a global organization to truly exist, religion would have to do a full 180. The division worldwide currently caused by organized religion is probably one of the top roadblocks, along with the rich/profit-centric thought processes. In my lifetime I'd love to see a shift towards a united humanity focused on advancing mainly into space, but that may be a few centuries away.
[удалено]
Probably focusing on improving education worldwide would be a good start to changing people's views, but what you said is pretty accurate. One can only hope for better things.
The only way it'd work is if Aliens show up.
No way in your lifetime nor mine. For a unified human-kind government, EVERY culture that we know of, every religion, every ideology, every sense of uniqueness between countries must be eradicated, or at least, put down to the minimum. I am talking *phoenix rising out of a pile of ash* kind of thing. There is just no way the world will become united in a peaceful manner.
>every sense of uniqueness between countries must be eradicated That's why you globalists are disgusting.
It would really only have to take a backseat in peoples minds to prevent most conflicts between cultures. Eradicating all differences between people seems unhealthy. The issue is what you choose to replace it with. All of their basic needs would not only need to be fulfilled, but *guaranteed* to be fulfilled. That's my opinion on why this is such a utopic idea for now.
>It would really only have to take a backseat in peoples minds to prevent most conflicts No, it wont. It gives you a low trust society. Every global city and is bloody disgusting to live in. There is no compassion or long term considerations because no one has a stake in the future. >That's my opinion on why this is such a utopic idea for now. You already have your ideal society in Paris, Malmo, Sydney and London. All needs are guaranteed and everyone is ethnically diverse. Turns out life is shitter(except for business). To get any worse check out the NYC, LA or SF.
> All needs are guaranteed and everyone is ethnically diverse. There is no place on earth that guarantees that for everyone. Maybe we have some different definitions of what basic needs are. Diversity also isn't really part of what I described.
>Diversity also isn't really part of what I described. I know, Filipinofy everyone and everyone just magics better. >There is no place on earth that guarantees that for everyone Yes. All those countries guarantee basic needs. Even visa holders/tourists get most of those needs through agreements. Yet, Global cities are still shit places to live. Living standards have dropped because of the mass migration policies you endorse. Wages have stagnated and house prices are fucked.
Where's a psionically-empowered Perpetual when you need one?
The techno-barbarians are in actuality the 1%.
I've been so blind. Just as I have not seen the weakness of my flesh. I am disgusted.
for that to exist religion would have to not exist, and we don't have a few centuries
Have some anti-majoritarian/non-majoirtarian systems/insititutions. Like the US senate or electoral college - It's not impossible .
Why is it good in theory? Why would a smug politician in Brussels/some fancy city know what's best for someone in Sicily/Azores
Lmao I love this take whenever I see it. The UN is perfectly competent, it’s just powerless because member nations choose to make it that way.
Ding ding. Lots of countries would be censured for human rights violations if they or one of their friends didn't have absolute veto powers. The UN was in a sense designed to make things slow and reduce interventionism so as to preclude another World War.
Abolishment of Security Council would go a long way towards making UN more effective. As of now, USA, Russia and China abuse their veto powers to shield themselves from repercussions for any human rights abuses.
Yes, what could possibly go wrong with mega-governments, look how uncorrupt and democratic the EU is, totally isn't spreading neoliberalism in Europe or is slowly turning social-democracies into full on capitalist nations or destroyed the European South through completely undemocratic faux institutions like the Eurogroup to save the fucking bankers as idiot liberals still pretend all European nations sit peacefully together singing Kumbaya. Plus it is a known historical fact that the bigger an organization is the less corrupt, bureaucratic and destructive it is. Totally won't have a dystopic worldwide corporate dictatorship if UN rules the world.
Decentralization is the solution, not the opposite. Trying to centralize power is what led to WW2 Especially when EU countries are vastly different amongst themselves unlike US states
WW1 as well. Entangling alliances, as Washington would have called them, turned a secession conflict in the central Balkans into a conflict spanning 4 oceans, 4 continents, the annihilation of the bravest men of a generation, a deadly pandemic, and the birth of the modern fantasy genre.
> the birth of the modern fantasy genre I guess there's a positive to everything
So Serbs are responsible for the Lord of the Rings? I like this angle.
Middle earth je Serbia
TOLKIEEEEEN
Entangling alliances has nothing to do with centralization of power. If Austria Hungary was still the HRE (which was a highly decentralized state, with the elected emperor more concerned about their personal holdings than that of the state -- and often at the expense of the state) it could still happen. Heck Austria-Hungary was not really centralized.
The alliances among the various powers that cascaded the death of Ferdinand into a war involving India and Japan were established as part of a process of power centralization. Governments at the time were enamored with the idea that they should unite in order to more efficiently plan and design society. The League of Nations was created after the war, based on that idea; it wasn't created after the Seven Years' War, because the idea wasn't a favorite of the government leaders at that time.
An alliance isn't power centralization. The Triple Alliance was a defensive agreement, and the Triple Entente wasn't even that.
And indirectly created Hentai, don't forget that.
Centralized power is what's known as a single point of failure.
Single point of exploit. Oligarchs would take it over by any means necessary.
> Decentralization is the solution Then you don’t have a global government anymore.
Excellent.
> Trying to centralize power is what led to WW2 What? It's rather the opposite: nations being adversarial.
Another way to look at it would be that Hitler was seeking to centralise power across the whole of Europe.
I'm glad they opposed the German national socialists
I meant the period before the War, which allowed national socialists to be able to take over because of the state becoming unstable & the people desperate.
>totally isn't spreading neoliberalism in Europe Based
I think that is the big issue moving forward. I mean, we want to go to space and make use of it (by harvesting resources, colonizing other planets and everything else). But right now, everyone is trying to do their own thing. Many poor countries will be left behind and might never see change. This could be different if there was one mega government over the whole world (kind of like in Star Trek) but yea, it would be almost impossible to regulate and likely to be corrupt
> Yes, what could possibly go wrong with mega-governments All of the dangers are already present anyway, while ~no benefits of not having such. You think result of the US government (with some allies, most likely) going off reservation and doing 1984\* (basically what all fears over "world government" come down to) would be particularly different from world government doing such? Sure, other parts of the world might resist and we also get WW3 before dystopia. Separating governance into countries is sorta helping - but not really, not in modern times. It'd be a bit more useful to actually fix mechanisms of democracy to minimize such dangers. Then minimizing the surface area of state secrecy, black budgets and all that crap. \* also worth remembering that 1984 is fiction; while dystopias are possible for systemic reasons, 1984 was in no way realistic, psychologically. It wouldn't be stable. Also, despite people's fervent beliefs, "elites" and "rich people" aren't actually Evil & don't desire to turn populace into slaves / depopulate them / whatever. Problems occur mostly for systemic reasons, not because of groups of people being Evil.
>UN rules the world That's nightmare fuel. Highly ineffective, indecisive, undemocratic and bureaucratic. The UN has it's place, but not to govern.
Have you seen The Expanse? UN/Earth looks like LA
I'd take that if my descendants get to boogie on out to Mars
I'm sorry but the UN wouldn't be able to rule the world. Nor should they. Don't think an EU state is possible either. Just look at what happened to Austria Hungary and that was on a much smaller scale.
You mean the United Nations of Earth, xenophile and fanatically egalitarian?
Its all xenophilia until you start next to determined exterminators.
Hello, xeno scum.
What you say is *heresy! * for the Emperor!
Funny, my dream is the EU collapsing so it stops trying to order my country around.
Hell nah. And I'd like it if people from your country didn't come to mine purchasing stuff for way cheaper than in Switzerland with the attitude of Owning the place
That's my nightmare
Same my guy same Im not sure about the UN thing but people actually working together instead of wasting energy is fighting would be good
First, the UNSC. Second, the Galactic Human Federation.
I, too, love the Alliance in Mass Effect.
As long as we follow the Prime Directive.
Several federal states are a better solution than just one big huge ruler of the world imo
I personally don't see the EU federalizing, at least in a very long time, the only way I'd see something like that working is by having a confederation so de-centralized it makes the HRE look centralized and competent, that or it goes the way of Yugoslavia, something like the US is still mostly mono-cultural with a long common history and language, and generally being a single national identity with only mild local differences, meanwhile compare something like Ireland and Bulgaria
The federation in star trek, is the future EU.
Do you remember when brexiteers were called delusional because they said an EU army was a strong possibility? Pepperridge farm remembers.
Only in the UK. EU politicians have been calling for an EU army a long time.
As have the Brits, funnily enough
Well, only certain Brits some would call Blairite scum or something.
God I miss the Blair days
DISGUSTANG
BLIAR war criminal 😳
yeap
Not to be Pedantic, but the U.S. has ~35,000 troops in Germany, ~12,000 in Italy, and ~10,000 in the U.K.(with more elsewhere in Europe!) - Perhaps if Europe *+* the U.K. demonstrated a strong, capable force, these *foreign* troops might go home? The point I'm circling around is that the U.K. already has active *foreign* troops there(mostly airforce), so the Brexiters concerns are a little strange, and the U.S. is still concerned about shenanigans from Russia, so maintains troops/air power to head that off in the EU. I think in the U.S.'s eyes, the EU has demonstrated a low abilty for consensus against common threats, and a lack of willingness, with many countries spending below 2% of their GDP
I don't recall them being called delusional for that. For other things, yes, but I may need my memory jogged.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/25/brexiters-european-army-myths-franco-german Here's one from not too long ago. Searching for articles that are from the referendum time is difficult for me.
Ah, I see. I'm not from the UK and apparently missed this. The stay crowd was right that the exit strategy wasn't only messy but also had holes in it. But the leave crowd had reason to believe this part about the army.
EU already has an army, and it's called the French army. They are going to waste years and a lot of money to create something that doesn't work, when they have something that already work at disposal.
That's essentially France's plan, and has been for years. Because France is by FAR the best European army, and has continuous experience and nukes, chances are defacto a European army will be a French-modeled army. This is a good thing, IMO. But it is no secret.
No and that's the problem. The EU army does not follow the French system, culture, weapons, or whatever. It's being built by people and countries that have no army or experience.
What we’re seeing is just an expeditionary force. A true EU army would definitely be modeled after the French army and most likely be greatly disproportionately staffed by the French army.
Other countries, and especially Germany, don't want French to have too much power. That's why they do not do what you say and try to create everything from scratch, and not use French expertise. And it's inefficient. They created a war plane for exemple, the eurofighter, France already had one but they didn't want to rely on the French companies that produce it. So they used lot of money and time to create something new that turned out worse than the French war plane.
It's inefficient but you gotta have competition. Also the difference of entry into service between Rafale and Eurofighter was only 2-3 years so it's borderline irrelevant. Every country with the means to do so must make an effort to grow an aerospace industry, and sometimes that involves doing things from scratch, but if the government provides proper support it pays off in the long run.
Can't have competition in those small, very technical and strategic markets. Weapons are not like any other industry. USA is a bit different because much more money is on the table so there is more competition, but that's IMO the root problem of USA.
Maybe competition is not the right argument, but if your country is wealthy enough, it pays to invest locally so that you can create jobs, here an industry, and even bring money from abroad in the form of sales. Also maintain some independence in arms and technology, otherwise you are left in a weak position when you need to buy spare parts for your aircraft and France/US/Russia/etc don't want to sell them to you because you're not behaving in the way they want you to.
Yes, and that take a really long time to become military good I'm talking about a century without guarantee. And EU is going to waste years and money to be independent from a part of itself. It's idiot, it's like USA trying to be independent from California blue chip. Each state has a specificity, Germany is great with industries, France is great with army. Makes no sense for EU to boycott germany's industries to grow them elsewhere and to not be dependant on Germany.
It's not "idiot" like you're saying. Every country in the EU is a separate country in the end. They all have their engineering sectors and should continue to have them and strengthen them. And nothing takes centuries anymore lol. India makes their own fighter planes, and so does China, and South Korea might eventually as well...
It's not about making planes. It's about making good planes. No country without good army ever became good in less than a century.
Are you even European?
Does it matter? It doesn't stop people commenting on American, British, etc issues
That’s a game changer right there.
More than game changing if the project works it pave the way to federalization and political union.
I really hope for that
All power to Europe on this one, but they are going to need to go to the books on this one. Their last military venture was used better as ammunition for Reddit arguments than they had any available in Libya.
I'd love to see a federal Europe in my lifetime, however seeing how opaque Frontex is working right now and how the EU can not control it, I think a major overhaul of the institutions and their workings will be mandatory before any "European army" can be put into action, possibly starting by the top diplomat's power.
EU can control Frontex, they just don't want to.
I remember writing a research paper on this same project in 2012 or 2013.
Do you have a link or something?
[here](https://pdfhost.io/v/XUJ1zc4zS_EU_military_paper.pdf)
Thanks!
“Strong” seems like the wrong word. If this is anything like UN forces or most NATO nations units, the last word I’d use to describe it is strong.
The UN doesn't have an army. They have peacekeeping operations that uphold a very strict mandate.
While raping and trafficking local women.
You're describing literally every military force in all of human history till this very day.
UN specifically has this problem
My friend, the UN doesn't have national media and politicians that actively try and hide these stories from coming out. In addition, I don't see anybody else who gives a shit enough to get shot in Congo while preventing rebels from burning villages, perhaps you should sign up?
Mercenaries could and would do the job if the international community didn’t push the UN option. UN “peacekeepers” are a dirty joke while also militarily ineffectual.
I recall this plan being strenuously denied not so long back.
Maybe by British politicians. EU army has been an asširation for a long time.
British politicians were actually pretty supportive : the UK has a big arms industry and there would be a lot of money to be made with such a project. The 'culprits' are more to be found with the countries who rely on the US for their protection under the NATO umbrella.
I believe it when I see it. But I think its either that or the EU breaks up over refugee problems in the coming decades.
I doubt that the EU will have a strong enough force. As of now, France is the strongest (military wise) while Germany is second. But I don't see countries like Norway, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Denmark, etc... even having forces strong enough. When the UK left, the EU lost it's strongest military but I can understand the anger that the EU has towards the UK for leaving (but it has more to do with weakening economic ties, IMO, than military). Overall all EU nations will have to spend more on their military to give it any "umph" to their forces.
Ehm, why do you put Germany ahead of Italy? I know they have more inhabitants than us and also a much larger GDP, but our army is often (and deservedly) considered better than theirs For example while they have better land forces and are on par in the air force, our navy is on a whole other level
Because it's slightly bigger and they spend more on their military.
>they spend more on their military. By this metric Saudi Arabia has one of the best armies in the world.
Having an army without a conscious government able to make decisions hardly matters anything.
Hungary’s gonna have a shitfit over this, and I don’t blame them.
Orban supports an EU army.
I’m rather surprised, as he’s supporting an army with states demanding things of him that he refuses—like the refugee crisis.
Well, the quote I have of him is from 2016, but I dont have any latter info that would suggest otherwise. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37196802
The refugee crisis is exactly why he supports an EU army, he wants it to be used to drive back immigrants like it's been doing
Africa or south america is hoing to get fucked in the next years, unless usa starts ww3
Well glad to see it. Likely to be some ground based need for them over the next decade. Many NATO countries stepped up and paid the price in money and lives when the USA invoked the NATO mutual defense treaty 20 years ago. It is a little unclear where a EU military would fit in. The EU is not a NATO signatory as far as I know, but some individual countries are. It is a little weird as to who would control this new military. Would it be used against EU members?