*In today’s highly turbulent world, security is one of the most topical issues. National armed forces are no longer sufficient to meet new threats, and therefore the need for integration is growing. Russia’s aggression in Ukraine has triggered a massive rearmament of the military and, moreover, opens up a unique opportunity for the European Union to fulfill its security and diplomatic ambitions.*
*The European Union should strive for the full protection of its citizens, which the North Atlantic Alliance collective is unable to guarantee. Ambassador Landovsky indirectly refers to this problem when he mentions the Republic of Cyprus, a Member State of the European Union, which does not have control over its entire territory because of a conflict with a NATO ally. The world is becoming less and less predictable, and it is the European Union that should act as an island of stability in uncertain times.*
*While our political representation has the utmost confidence in NATO, the future of this organisation is threatened by two fundamental weaknesses. Firstly, the unity of NATO members cannot be relied upon, as is now illustrated by the stalemate over the admission of Sweden and Finland, which has been blocked for months by Hungary and Turkey. While the whole affair could be blamed on the irresponsibility of some allies, the United States’ reluctance to press Turkey harder shows that NATO is shifting its interests to the Pacific and its future in relation to Europe is uncertain.*
*But the second key weakness is much more fundamental. It is the famous Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. It is often described in the media as a ‘conflict against one – a conflict where all fight’ principle. In reality, however, support may be limited to, say, a small shipment of helmets and ballistic vests, not direct military intervention or even nuclear conflict.*
*During the Cold War, several concepts were developed to respond to a military strike from the East. Because of the fear of nuclear conflict, US aid to Europe was envisaged to be very limited. Today, although the risk of a world conflict being sparked by, for example, the small Baltic states might not be so high, only a single European army can provide real security for all EU states.*
*Even before the war in Ukraine, efforts for military integration were already being promoted within Europe – the Dutch army and the Bundeswehr are examples. European-scale integration seems a logical solution for a number of smaller, less well-funded armed forces on the continent that could hardly succeed alone in a larger conflict.*
*The creation of a European Union army could not only ensure the security of all Member States, but also guarantee peace and stability in our immediate neighborhood. There, the situation often remains in the hands of more powerful geopolitical actors, over whom the individual Member States have no effective leverage.*
*A European Union army would not mean the end of the Alliance, but rather a transformation into a two-pillar system in the form of the US and the EU working together as more equal allies.*
*Strategic production is also linked to the integration of the armed forces, the weaknesses of which have been exposed by the current supply crisis in Ukraine. Despite the long history of the arms industry in Europe, the mix of production capacities is quite inadequate. The supply of Western tanks to the current battlefields presents most Member States with a fundamental dilemma. Although we are not threatened ourselves, the absence of sufficient equipment may weaken our security in the long term.*
*The prospect of a unified EU military force is partly anticipated by the current efforts to support the arms industry with joint orders as a local instrument to ensure the continent’s defence.*
*This can be seen as the first step in a long-term process towards a common European army in the spirit of the ideas that underpinned modern European integration in the 1950s.*
that’s a clearly bad opinion.
volt is a european federalist party. they are present in all eu countries with varying degrees of success. as a federalist party of course a european union army is an objective.
> Firstly, the unity of NATO members cannot be relied upon
That’s about admission of two *new* members. Not protection of existing members. And more importantly, can you rely on the unity of EU?
Unlike an EU Army, with NATO you don’t actually need unity. You just need enough powerful NATO countries to step up. Having to rely on the slow moving consensus-driven EU in times of war? No thanks. In war you need to be swift and decisive. The EU is not built for war.
> But the second key weakness is much more fundamental. It is the famous Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
And how would an EU army work? That could obviously also boil down to “helmets and vests”.
Ultimately it’s about who you trust. And I’m sorry to say but Macron has utterly destroyed any hope of an “EU army”. The Ukraine war was an opportunity for France to show Europe that France could be the backbone of European security but Macron failed.
Compare the UK and France. They have about the same military strength. But has anyone ever doubted the UKs support? No. From day one the British PM made the UKs position clear; “Fuck Putin”. But as thousands of Ukrainians were killed Macron stated his concerns “We must not humiliate Putin”.
No. European countries should work closer, create integrated battle groups, maybe similar countries could merge some branches together, but a “European army” is nonsense.
If we are going for an integrated army, why not a NATO army? Seems just as doable and much more useful.
Would a combined EU military even be as strong as China?
>European-scale integration seems a logical solution for a number of smaller, less well-funded armed forces on the continent
This is the bigger issue, countries not putting as much into the military as others. Why should France and Italy have to pay for such a large chunk of an EU armies power? If the EU as a whole has to fund it how does that work with neutral countries and who decides who gets the fancy new equipment?
You are welcome to join our Dutch-German project.
EU consists of sovereign nations.
It wouldn’t with this.
no we dont
A European Army is a strategic necessity. NATO in its current form means that we Europeans are completely dependent on the US and unable to defend ourselves. That said, a European Army should be part of NATO and strengthen the Transatlantic Alliance. But do you really believe that the decision of a few thousand voters in Pennsylvania should decide about the security of our continent every four years?
This is France trying hard to show their leadership in European security, similar to German leadership in European economics. Its not bad, but .. we have USA and so far they’ve proven themselves.
Sry, but I wouldn’t trust France not to sell some countries to Russia sphere of influence for some … benefits.
Yes we do, but it’s highly unlikely that we’ve make one.
I agree. Will Finnish or Hungarian soldiers come to fight the Turks if they invade the Greek islands? I don’t think so. It’s a good pipe dream but will never happen.
15 comments
Nah Im good with not doing federalism.
*In today’s highly turbulent world, security is one of the most topical issues. National armed forces are no longer sufficient to meet new threats, and therefore the need for integration is growing. Russia’s aggression in Ukraine has triggered a massive rearmament of the military and, moreover, opens up a unique opportunity for the European Union to fulfill its security and diplomatic ambitions.*
*The European Union should strive for the full protection of its citizens, which the North Atlantic Alliance collective is unable to guarantee. Ambassador Landovsky indirectly refers to this problem when he mentions the Republic of Cyprus, a Member State of the European Union, which does not have control over its entire territory because of a conflict with a NATO ally. The world is becoming less and less predictable, and it is the European Union that should act as an island of stability in uncertain times.*
*While our political representation has the utmost confidence in NATO, the future of this organisation is threatened by two fundamental weaknesses. Firstly, the unity of NATO members cannot be relied upon, as is now illustrated by the stalemate over the admission of Sweden and Finland, which has been blocked for months by Hungary and Turkey. While the whole affair could be blamed on the irresponsibility of some allies, the United States’ reluctance to press Turkey harder shows that NATO is shifting its interests to the Pacific and its future in relation to Europe is uncertain.*
*But the second key weakness is much more fundamental. It is the famous Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. It is often described in the media as a ‘conflict against one – a conflict where all fight’ principle. In reality, however, support may be limited to, say, a small shipment of helmets and ballistic vests, not direct military intervention or even nuclear conflict.*
*During the Cold War, several concepts were developed to respond to a military strike from the East. Because of the fear of nuclear conflict, US aid to Europe was envisaged to be very limited. Today, although the risk of a world conflict being sparked by, for example, the small Baltic states might not be so high, only a single European army can provide real security for all EU states.*
*Even before the war in Ukraine, efforts for military integration were already being promoted within Europe – the Dutch army and the Bundeswehr are examples. European-scale integration seems a logical solution for a number of smaller, less well-funded armed forces on the continent that could hardly succeed alone in a larger conflict.*
*The creation of a European Union army could not only ensure the security of all Member States, but also guarantee peace and stability in our immediate neighborhood. There, the situation often remains in the hands of more powerful geopolitical actors, over whom the individual Member States have no effective leverage.*
*A European Union army would not mean the end of the Alliance, but rather a transformation into a two-pillar system in the form of the US and the EU working together as more equal allies.*
*Strategic production is also linked to the integration of the armed forces, the weaknesses of which have been exposed by the current supply crisis in Ukraine. Despite the long history of the arms industry in Europe, the mix of production capacities is quite inadequate. The supply of Western tanks to the current battlefields presents most Member States with a fundamental dilemma. Although we are not threatened ourselves, the absence of sufficient equipment may weaken our security in the long term.*
*The prospect of a unified EU military force is partly anticipated by the current efforts to support the arms industry with joint orders as a local instrument to ensure the continent’s defence.*
*This can be seen as the first step in a long-term process towards a common European army in the spirit of the ideas that underpinned modern European integration in the 1950s.*
that’s a clearly bad opinion.
volt is a european federalist party. they are present in all eu countries with varying degrees of success. as a federalist party of course a european union army is an objective.
> Firstly, the unity of NATO members cannot be relied upon
That’s about admission of two *new* members. Not protection of existing members. And more importantly, can you rely on the unity of EU?
Unlike an EU Army, with NATO you don’t actually need unity. You just need enough powerful NATO countries to step up. Having to rely on the slow moving consensus-driven EU in times of war? No thanks. In war you need to be swift and decisive. The EU is not built for war.
> But the second key weakness is much more fundamental. It is the famous Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
And how would an EU army work? That could obviously also boil down to “helmets and vests”.
Ultimately it’s about who you trust. And I’m sorry to say but Macron has utterly destroyed any hope of an “EU army”. The Ukraine war was an opportunity for France to show Europe that France could be the backbone of European security but Macron failed.
Compare the UK and France. They have about the same military strength. But has anyone ever doubted the UKs support? No. From day one the British PM made the UKs position clear; “Fuck Putin”. But as thousands of Ukrainians were killed Macron stated his concerns “We must not humiliate Putin”.
No. European countries should work closer, create integrated battle groups, maybe similar countries could merge some branches together, but a “European army” is nonsense.
If we are going for an integrated army, why not a NATO army? Seems just as doable and much more useful.
Would a combined EU military even be as strong as China?
>European-scale integration seems a logical solution for a number of smaller, less well-funded armed forces on the continent
This is the bigger issue, countries not putting as much into the military as others. Why should France and Italy have to pay for such a large chunk of an EU armies power? If the EU as a whole has to fund it how does that work with neutral countries and who decides who gets the fancy new equipment?
You are welcome to join our Dutch-German project.
EU consists of sovereign nations.
It wouldn’t with this.
no we dont
A European Army is a strategic necessity. NATO in its current form means that we Europeans are completely dependent on the US and unable to defend ourselves. That said, a European Army should be part of NATO and strengthen the Transatlantic Alliance. But do you really believe that the decision of a few thousand voters in Pennsylvania should decide about the security of our continent every four years?
This is France trying hard to show their leadership in European security, similar to German leadership in European economics. Its not bad, but .. we have USA and so far they’ve proven themselves.
Sry, but I wouldn’t trust France not to sell some countries to Russia sphere of influence for some … benefits.
Yes we do, but it’s highly unlikely that we’ve make one.
I agree. Will Finnish or Hungarian soldiers come to fight the Turks if they invade the Greek islands? I don’t think so. It’s a good pipe dream but will never happen.
Finally.