Zelenskyy: ‘The time has come’ for a European army

16 comments

1. SS: At the Munich Security Conference,  President Zelenskyy called for the establishment of a unified European army to counter Russian aggression and replace the US in all security domains. He emphasized that Europe’s security decisions should be made independently and autonomously, moving toward a cohesive defence strategy and for Europe to become a global power.

2. Crisis hits Europe ———> it’s time for a European army! ———> crisis hits Europe ————-> it’s time for a European army!

3. European army with EU, UK, Turkey and Ukraine ideally would be strong, but it’s hardly doable. UK still considers US its closest ally, Turkey has problems with Greece and Cyprus, while Ukraine has and will always have one big problem, being too close to Russia.

4. He’s a fool. But right on this.

5. The end of Pax Americana

6. An army of five million Europeans, including Ukrainians, could protect Europe from Greenland to Luhansk! And project global power 🇪🇺🪖☀️

7. Let’s be real. There is 0 chance we will build a European army. And even if we did, Ukraine wouldn’t be a part of it for obvious reasons…

8. Just make sure you equip it with European arms.

9. They been saying this since forever and it never happens lol

10. Doesn’t this already exist and isn’t it called NATO?

11. This will never happen!

    Problems being – No alignment on conscription, who would be “in charge”, who would pay and how much, language barriers, conflicts of interest (national vs continental).

    Ukraine would also not be accepted in to the EU and therefore could be an integral part of a European Army!

12. I kinda more support an some form of European military alliance against countries who’s want to hurt European countries like Turkey, Russia possibly USA, China than others than European army

13. European security and sovereign on the line. He correct, trend has been clear for a decade now. I just hope we take the opportunity and UK joins Europe in doing it.

14. To Russia, Ukraine is about resources and territory, and the access the territory provides; symbolism and historic significance are secondary, perhaps even domestically performative. The reason he’s pushing the formation of a European army is because there needs to be a credible countervailing force against Russia, which historically has been NATO, and of that, the US has been the actual deterrent. The stability and efficacy of NATO is now under serious question. There are very few good alternatives to a large unified fighting force comprised of European states, especially against an aggressive nuclear-armed adversary. There are a handful of European defense initiatives but none are of the scale that makes them credible. The closest thing that could be pulled off in a useful timeframe is a coalition of European states bolstering the European pillar of NATO. If it dissolves, it dissolves, but the knowledge and connections will still exist and be valuable. Unfortunately, something like this must include changes nobody really wants, and many unintended consequences.

15. I heard this idea before and first it looks cool but more i think about it it seems as not that great idea. two things came at my mind immediately. Who would decide when and how this army would be used? A consesnsus of 27 states? Ridiculous. Next union army can mean a high risk individual countries would care less and spend less on their armies so in total you would have the same or less powerfull summof armies and such army would be not operational for political reasons. Keep individual countries armies, push hardly on spending at least 3.5% for each country with consequences if they dont and on union level build a stockpile of critical weapons to be sent to a country or an ally that is in need of it and mainly motivate to have large arms production capacities that can be used in case of war.

16. Didn’t the EU swear that the EU wasn’t ever going to make a unified army?

Comments are closed.