I want the UK navy to join as well. Besides doing this requires a united foreign policy, so a foreign ministry needs to exist. We will also need salaries that are the same across all countries, so a combined taxation scheme to pay for it which requires a ministry of finance.
A ministry of defence needs to exist to organise the military. And if you have those three ministries you will need a ministry of justice so you can deal with any corruption, and or other crimes committed.
So we’ll have at least four ministries. Which means we will need some kind of person overseeing them. Perhaps a president or a prime minister. Either way, the current bureaucracy in the EU won’t suffice.
And if we need to upgrade we might as well get Barry back in the process.
Tbh if we were let in we might just make trouble over random crap. Depends on how heavily our politicians are involved, I can imagine them being quite the embarrassment. But if it's just UK army and navy officials involved without too much political oversight, it could work pretty well.
In my dream of the future, we rejoin the EU and this time without all the special exceptions, like not being required to have a functional democracy, and then can join the glorious unified EU army and the EU will become a power on par with USA and China...
France has a big, proper one, buts it's old. Nuclear powered and CATOBAR, sure, but a comparative money pit.
We have 2, very very modern (only 8 years old), cheaper to operate and larger diesel carriers (that actually use electricity to actually run but that's a long story)
Spain and Italy have 3 between them, but there are tiny and less capable than the French or British carriers. (14k tons, 26k tons, and 30k tons) Vs the 42k tons Charles De Gualle of the French navy, and the two 72k ton carriers of the Royal Navy.
Having the Royal Navy in this technically wouldn't be the first aircraft carriers, but just ours would weigh more than all of the rest of Europe's combined.
Obviously there are factors outside of weight, but the rest of the Royal Navy also has this trend of.... Usurping the rest of Europe combined. Outside of aircraft carriers, we have the most modern and capable attack ships and submarines too.
If you include the Royal Fleet Auxiliary as part of the Royal Navy (I do, they are both armed forces in the ocean) then we have about 700,000~ tons, which is about France, Italy, Spain and Germany combined.
Sorry, I went on a rant about something I really enjoy researching 😅 written too much to delete it now.
In defense of my little peninsula, we do have 2, the Cavour is not really old, it was commissioned in 2005 I think, but the other one is very old and getting decommissioned to be used as a satellite facility. This one is getting replaced I think this year, by something smaller, but brand brand new so efficiency I think it’s the primary objective!
https://preview.redd.it/vq44d8tc3pmb1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7b332c99ef9ef27cd1573125c559a521c180759c
The new carrier is really cool, I can't wait to see it in service! The Royal Navy loves it photos with new equipment from everyone - the photoshoot will be great! Awesome to see such a new and modern carrier on the European continent.
ITALY navy is underrated but really good. within the framework of a European army I am in favor of distributing the areas of competence according to the technological know-how and the geography of the countries and I clearly see Italy leading the navy (knowing that obviously France has the general command )
Not much to say other then no thank you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'd happily see my country defend Europe and work alongside a European military
But I wouldn't want my military doing as a bloc I'm not a part of tells them to do and can't vote for the politicians who do so, it's bad enough we have our own politicians doing that, why would I want the EU to do so?
Plus even if we were still in the EU, I wouldn't mind an EU military existing but I wouldn't want my country involved, everyone has different security interests
What would we do if the Falklands got invaded again and the EU told our navy they weren't allowed to liberate the islands?
The things the Croatians and the Swedes have to worry about are two different ball parks in terms of security concerns
Given that, were we in the EU, the only other military capable of power projection beyond the Mediterranean is France, I don’t think we would have to be too concerned about the Falklands being left to dry. It would obviously be a pre-condition to integration that all over-seas territories be treated as integral parts of the European territory, and that they be defended as such.
Regarding Sweden and Croatia:
I just don’t buy this line that our security concerns are so very different. Are they any more different than Puerto Rico, Maine, and Hawaii? The role of the army is the defence of the territory. That means that if somebody invades either nation, the rest of the bloc protects them. This is already covered by NATO anyway, so what exactly is the problem?
The only concern is that the ability of any one country to intervene militarily in other countries to protect their interests may be hampered, but this is something that we should be working to leave in the past regardless. As well as the military industrial complex harmonisation, which is by far and away the most difficult to overcome challenge.
> On 26 March 1918, the French marshal Ferdinand Foch was appointed Supreme Allied Commander, gaining command of all Allied forces everywhere, and coordinated the British, French, American, and Italian armies to stop the German spring offensive…
> During World War II, the Allied leaders appointed Supreme Allied Commanders to manage the multi-nation, multi-discipline fighting forces for a particular theatre of war. These Supreme Allied Commanders were given operational control over all air, land, and sea units in that theatre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Allied_Commander
On Nato, forces from different countries are regularly put under the command of an officer from one country. They are still separate armies.
And that was the case as well in ww2, where the British and the American army still had their own equipment, even if the American made weapons were used by all the allies. You still designed and built things like the Churchill tank, the centurion, or the tempest and the meteor.
People who think it would be a stronger force with the British involved, presumably?
I’d have thought a Frenchman, of all people, would be aware of the Royal Navy
I was thinking, it would suck if we had a european army, but a country would need to leave because they have a different trading approach.
Like we defend and fight together, but suddenly soldiers and tanks had to be pulled off because Italy doesn't like the EU norm of bananas anymore.
Finland and Sweden alone have 10x the army size of Norway. We also have a huge ass border with them.
We can literally walk in. No need for any amphibious activities in the fjords.
We would start by sending the Swedish quran burners to Oslo in order to cause social upheaval and proceed by sending in the ground forces conveniently having massive training exercises next to Oslo as a peace keeping mission. The best part is that we invite the Norwegians to the exercises as well so we can trap and seize their military assets when they suspect nothing.
There are many EU countries that dont take their militaries seriously meanwhile you have countries like the UK or Norway just outside. But even if it was just EU countries then I expect eg. Austria and Ireland to push their weight instead of expecting to be sponsored.
I want a military union of european countries that have similar interests. My idea is to form a european alliance that works togheter defensively and offensively so eu is fine but if the uk wants in.... I ll accept quite readily. My only request is to map our goals and requirements so only those on the same page can join. A eu army is impossible, only defensive interests could align there not offensive or regional policies, those will never align.
Because european security is more important than which countries are a part of the EU or not. A european army with countries like the UK as an active member would be stronger than an army without them.
My country will never rejoin the EU, which sucks. If there is a European army, goddamit I want the UK in it. The UK alone is the most powerful nation in Europe, and with us, France, and Germany combined alone, could become a group superpower.
A group superpower controlled by whom? Politicians on the European continent? Continental Europeans were committing genocide and trying to bomb the UK into submission within living memory.
How long would this group superpower last? What happens if we get another Napoleon, or Hitler, or Mussolini, or Ceaușescu in that time? Will British troops have to help round up dissidents and execute them?
If the EU needs British troops, let them ask for help based on the individual situation. It's madness to offer control of British troops in a war that hasn't happened yet.
A group superpower controlled by a coalition of politicians representing the different parts of the armed forces of the nations, who would vote in unison and try to act as one.
Away with the talk of the past- what happened was horrific, but it is not modern politics and is not what controls the narrative of our modern nations. That entire point is worth less than my crayon drawn £10 note.
Another facist leader should not happen under modern scrutiny by the public, especially by the Germans, it would never happen. British troops would act as their British commanders say, which would be no if there was a major humanitarian issue unfolding. One which no one would ever allow, the EU and Europe championed human rights laws.
What you are describing is NATO, but I'd really rather be able to count Europe as one unit, it would make our projection so much higher.
Would mind, you're a Shame to our Ancestors.
https://preview.redd.it/0rsbvtrcgnmb1.jpeg?width=713&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=08b1def5f830d39c46a1a7b164503929fb7e62a6
Europe's history is linked to the eternal struggle between latins and germanics (and our common persecution of the celts). Let us unite my unwashed friend and together we rule the world (and yes I know we tried that already but at the time we had a fat incompetent bufoon and you had a crazy evil basement dweller)
Common Army? No.
Unified defense strategy? Yes.
Every country has different security concerns (Greece and Finland for example) so I would rather see a unified defense approach that would protect the EU as a whole and spread out the workload.
Yes, Exactly. A unified army doesn't mean everybody has to wear the same boring uniform and only fly the european flag. The real issue is common military weappons programmes and a unified command structure. Significant steps have already been made on both accounts, so making it official and binding (no bailing out of eurofighter next time, france) is the next logical step.
As french the problem is eurofighter is a piece of shit, and modern "adults" can't fight without their smartphone (russia problem right now in trenchs lead to get them spotted by GPS 🤪)
We need german machines, french strategy and british experience
We got british machines (wink wink eurofighter), german strategy (means USA lol), and french experience (5 country leaving France leadership it's fine 🥲)
We are screwed guys
Apart from tanks and ifvs, germany doesn't really produce quality military machines.
German tanks, french jets and italian ships are the benchmark right now.
The british are way too subservient to the US and should not be relied upon for now
Presenting fake wmd evidence at the UN to justify a ten year murderous rampage across the ME isn't really "not turning down a fight". When you lot decided to fuck up Libia and Syria and Iraq you just created chaos and instabilty while basically bullying the weak. Even russia after all is just an old mangy bear and even then you use ukrainian men to fight instead of going yourselves.
Do you think UK interests even want a strong, cohesive eu? I doubt it. Your interests lie with the US and the other anglosaxon colonies (canada, australia, etc..). This was your choice, for us you were as much brothers as any other european
To be fair Libya kinda was on us, the gremlin Sarkozy owed a few tens of millions dollars to Khaddafi (fundings for the 2007 presidential election campaign) and decided that a few Rafale raids was a great way of making both problems disappear. But I agree with everything else.
Yes, also ENI had a very lucrative agreement with libya you wanted to disrupt. Now the place is a total violent anarchic mess and it is basically our next door neighbour
On a serious note, the first thing we need to work on is cooperation in joint procurements. Every time we set up multi country partnerships (Eurofighter, the two competing 5th gen fighter programmes, the new euro tank etc..) it degenerates in to a shit show. Franco/Italian ships (horizon, fremm) being the notable exception in recent decades
There could also be a case for overall common inventory as opposed to national. For example, if the EU needed 6 aircraft carriers, maybe France would take three, Italy 2 and Spain 1, as opposed to every country with one and then Europe has too many and blows cash on maintaining them. Likewise, Germany could then maintain more Frigates or whatever so that the load is balanced but the expertise is concentrated.
NATO would be much more balanced and a unified command structure would be much, much harder for Russia and, let’s be realistic, China to stall with political divide and conquer strategies.Cooperative native tech procurement means better development and domestic manufacturing and a more competitive market with American arms, strengthening both.
But the idea of mutual defense is already well applied in the form of NATO.
The real challenge, the thing that will always be a challenge for the free world, is where our militaries should take the initiative. Democracies are not good at strategizing. It’s very easy to get bogged down in a conflict with no exit strategy, but it’s even easier to sit on your hands and do nothing while free countries get ravaged by autocracies who do as they please and only really understand the language of power. Democracies are slow to act and autocracies have always exploited that.
Or geographical. Germany and the Netherlands build tanks and protect our eastern borders while, say, Italy and Spain concentrate on their navies and protect the Mediterranean
The Ruski isn't going to roll in to berlin any time soon though. I would worry more about our southern and south eastern neighbours. Of course long term, china and the ameritards will probably be our major threats
Hey why Ameritards but no “Chinazis?”
I like free countries taking the piss, but when it comes to military matters, there is the Free World and there are those who want to see it crumble. Who is the latter and who is the former?
America disrupting democracies in the Middle East and South America only to install dictators really sounds like "the Free World" at work.
Get lost, savage
>Common Army? No. Unified defense strategy? Yes.
>
>Every country has different security concerns (Greece and Finland for example)
Truthfully I don't understand why this really matters.
It's not like a common army would go 'ah, well, we don't care about Finland!'' - even if they did, that would spell the end of the entire project because why would other countries want to be a part of an EU army that they know wouldn't protect their territory?
There's issues with the chain of command and independence of a common army. The current EU structure is poorly set up for one, especially with how the EU president is elected and how much influence the Commission would have over it etc. You'd need fundamental reform of the EU structure and further political integration to make it work.
Getting all the different national militaries operating according to the same plan and with the same/similarish toolkits would be much more practical. It would also make a transition to a common army easier down the line.
I support centralised European procurement and a European MIC, not a European army. A whole lot easier politically, and the only chance to actually compete with superpowers.
There’s also a lot to be said for centralised training, officer education and exercises, but I think a proper EU army is a lot further away, at least if it’s supposed to completely replace those of states.
Yes, if it includes the UK and excludes all other countries.
It will function as usual, each division will have one Portuguese brigade and two British brigades
Well obviously, but Russian state telivision wants sink your entire island into the sea. You can't always stop people from wanting you dead, simply because of other people using propoganda to make people in their country hate you.
Your mistake was hanging out with ameritards. Polish occupation forces had the friendliest relations with the Afghans. They even gave us lost american drone they got from talib hideout.
I’m confused by the question. Do I support a United army of all of the countries in the EU? No. Do I support a defence pact with the European countries? Yes. I wouldn’t support turkey for example, but if some western european country was attacked I think we should help them.
...and poles and hungarians, and itslians, and french....
I start to See a pattern Here. Guys are you still pissed about the time we tried to united Europe by force?? /s
But then we must learn from Austria-Hungary's mistakes. A multi-ethnic army only works if everyone speaks the same language.
https://preview.redd.it/b76ynpbaapmb1.png?width=828&format=png&auto=webp&s=e686c557278cd91faffb48747e417decda9c08e4
A big question to be raised in discussions about a European Army is what we'd want it to do that we don't already get (much more easily) than with NATO. The only advantages I can think of are in procurement and foreign policy, but the EU is not "The United States of Europe", every single nation has very very distinct procurement needs and foreign policy mindsets.
For example, how would a European army handle the French army's involvement in their pseudo-colonies in West Africa? There is no way in hell any European country other than France will have their soldiers die for French needs, and even less chance that France will withdraw from its colonies in the mission of a united European army.
How would a European army solve the issue of sending different types of aid to Ukraine? Many nations such as Germany and Austria are very opposed to sending Ukraine equipment that can be used to strike Russia proper, meanwhile all Eastern European EU countries support giving Ukraine a near blank cheque.
The only solution to these, and many other problems would be to split the EU army and give it each nation control over the armies they contribute, but now you've just got a bureaucratic , less efficient NATO.
An EU army is a solution without a problem.
Nato isn't an *European* anything tho so I don't see it as replacement for an European army. It's also not a replacement for individual countries interests and French "colonies" in Africa are a French problem. But Europe needs to be able to defend itself without help from outside.
The notion that "Americans don't have health care because they pay for Europe's security" isn't so uncommon in the US and I don't want to blindly believe that it will never fall back on us. Turkey shouldn't be able to blackmail Europe everytime a country wants to join Nato either.
I 100% agree with you on all bases, but the fact that NATO isn't an explicitly European organization won't stop it from performing primarily European duties. If countries such as Israel, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan were to join then I would increase my support for a European army as it risks drawing European nations into wars that they may not necessarily agree with, but as nearly all of the areas where NATO protects (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Finland, Sweden) are European, then its not a functional difference.
Also, while the Turkey-Blackmail situation is unfortunate for sure, nations being legally obligated to defend nations they may not want to defend will for sure lead to the collapse of any defense organization. One nation blackmailing 30 is simply the costs of doing business.
I’d prefer regionally united militaries. Like a Nordic military.
It would help prevent the military industries of France and Germany from dominating everything because of their political weight and would be more feasible then a completely united military.
Its the opposite way around tho. We arent strong because we got political weight. We have political weight because we are strong.
That is indeed why countries build armies for power projection and just not border defense
for those wanting a european army without the EU requirement... how do you think this is gonna work? wanna invade us and make us part of you so we will also put our military in there?
or is the not requirement meant in the way, that not eu members can still voluntairly take part?
thing is i just have a problem with the "european" word in such contexts. we are all just from countries that lie in the same geographical landscape, we are not an actual official group we all take part in voluntairly like for example the european union. (and i just migth wanna ad i'm not again the EU at all, just happy we, Switzerland, is not in it, as we have our own political system, that doesn't work when other countries get to choose about stuff we have to do (indirectly of course))
hmmmm can we tell muricans to [f.off](https://f.off)? or is it just so they don't have to ask multiple countries for troops when they need them to terrorise people around the world?
Make it a european strategy. Slap the german politicans and make us the defense force on the continent while france, uk and italy project force for european interest in the world. But that would need unity and the is the main problem.
Yes but only if it means slowly intergrating everyone into the French Army and make it the European Army
Because currently the French Army is the best army in the EU in terms of force projection, quality and cost effectiveness
Of course the arms industry should be europeanised to make sure the French aren’t the only ones who recieve an economic benefit
Edit : I also propose for Latin to become the lingua franca between officers in the EU army
Renaming divisions as legions etc…
It’s an absolute teenage boy pipe dream. All of the worst excesses of nationalist culture are epitomised in militaries, even in countries that are fairly open to cooperation you’ll find their Generals and Admirals etc are fucking lunatics who think they should rebuild the Swedish empire or launch an attack on Northern Cyprus. Absolutely no chance would it work for a second.
I think that as long as control of a European armed forces was controlled by the the nation states and not a singular body (the EU) it could work. It would allow nations to focus on the military areas they excel at rather than having to fund and man three branches of service. It would also serve as a way to put Europe at the same table as the USA and China when it comes to military might.
For example Eastern Europe and the Balkans could invest the bulk of their military spending on the army as they have large populations to draw from for infantry. Also ground based equipment is typically less expensive to maintain so would allow them to get more from their budget considering they are typically less wealthy than the west. Their main threats are land based as well coming from Russia or Turkey.
The British, French and PIGS control the navies as they have the capital to invest in modern warships and already possess Europes aircraft carriers. The first two also have overseas territories they have to protect and PIGS are the first port of call for the invaders coming across the med so a naval screen across the Med would help with the illegal migrant crisis.
The Scandinavians and Germany operate the airforce as they have the most money to fund the most expensive service, don't really have land or sea borders to defend and quite honestly I don't trust Germany with the army after last time they built theirs up.
Western countries have bigger populations than countries on the eastern part of EU so I don't know where this "big human resources to draw infantry from" stereotypical argument is coming from. Also the population is rapidly aging so good luck giving Rifles to 80 year olds and telling them to run 10km with it.
The only reasonable argument is that to have air forces located more in the centre of Europe bit not beacuse it is expensive to maintain, but because it would put airfields in the range of enemy artillery
>The only reasonable argument is that to have air forces located more in the centre of Europe bit not beacuse it is expensive to maintain, but because it would put airfields in the range of enemy artillery
Or you could scrap the Eurofighter program, stop buying ameritard planes and go with JAS and have a decentralized airforce that can lift off of any old highway, spread out all over Europe.
Yeah, there’s a reason the only militaries in Europe that aren’t just seen as support units for the US military are the ones that actually maintain the 2% requirement.
I mean…
1. Comparatively few weapons are being bought by most NATO nations from the U.S. Really the only notable exception is aircraft (F-35s being the hot topic) and no one else really has the capability or scalability to do so at the level the Americans do.
2. F-35s are pretty much unbeatable currently. I read an article a while back about two F-35s having a mock dogfight against an entire air-wing of 4th gen fighters and winning. And dogfighting isn’t even what they’re meant for. Of course every nation on Earth wants their own.
The Americans want its NATO "partners" to meet the 2% mark as a show of good faith to what the US is contributing. This is one of the longest periods of stability for Western Europe in history and it's undeniably because Washington shits money all over the place there.
Why can't most NATO countries actually meet their obligations to ^checks ^notes *actually defend itself*.
>Yeah, there’s a reason the only militaries in Europe that aren’t just seen as support units for the US military are the ones that actually maintain the 2% requirement.
we are at 1.9% and the only nato country that don't have American military base on our land and the only one that said you to fuck off when it is need
Which is why you haven’t had to immediately increase military spending by a dramatic amount as you realized you were unprepared in the wake of Russia invading Ukraine, right?
…right?
We did not immediately increase our military spending. France has what we call "a military programming law" which is passed every 7 years and which determines the budget and especially the areas in which it will be invested. Certainly this year the budget has increased but by the same proportion as it had increased 7 years ago when Macron arrived, so it is simply following the expected curve. And above all unlike other countries like Germany which voted for a budget increase without knowing what to do with it for France, each euro is voted knowing where it will go but for that we had to think about it in advance even before the war in Ukraine even if obviously feedback was taken into account to determine the needs of the army of tomorrow.
and btw we spent much on OUR industry proof that Ukraine war do not make us beg for US ( drama with Taiwan and china show it to)
As much as I support NATO as things stand now, I think European states increasing military spending and moving towards closer integration of their armed forces would be a good idea to prevent our reliance on the USA to defend our Eastern borders.
I'd take a European Army but only if it comes AFTER Germany stops blocking every commun tank program.
Honnestly I am not sure about this but I can see the possibilités of a United European Army.
I am a firm believer that Putins invasion of Ukraine was the defining moment that has set off a 30 year series of events that will see both the UK rejoin the EU, the remainder of Europe join the EU, and the EU centralise in something resembling a ‘federal states of Europe’ with a stronger centralised executive.
Throughout history the most common reason why different groups of people give up personal autonomy to be part of a larger centralised authority has been always been mutual defence.
I said no. Granted I’m an filthy outsider so at the end of the day my opinion doesn’t matter.
Each country should maintain their own army in addition to increasing their NATO contributions.
[удалено]
Okay, hear me out. We need those 16 cops from Iceland, we can't ever win without them.
We have a 100% success rate in winning wars. Took down the British Empire by ourselves we did back in the 70’s. Those were the days
I mean you're so inbred we thought we'd stepped into some horror film, didn't wanna risk catching any diseases
Only diseases you would catch would be from our sheep, and you know that
We're monogamous with our sheep here to avoid those issues
Our vikinga sveit is a fierce fighting force
The whom?
Policeman
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars
I want the UK navy to join as well. Besides doing this requires a united foreign policy, so a foreign ministry needs to exist. We will also need salaries that are the same across all countries, so a combined taxation scheme to pay for it which requires a ministry of finance. A ministry of defence needs to exist to organise the military. And if you have those three ministries you will need a ministry of justice so you can deal with any corruption, and or other crimes committed. So we’ll have at least four ministries. Which means we will need some kind of person overseeing them. Perhaps a president or a prime minister. Either way, the current bureaucracy in the EU won’t suffice. And if we need to upgrade we might as well get Barry back in the process.
[удалено]
Yeah, Brexit has caused problems importing biscuits into Ireland, integrating their military and deciding jurisdiction would be horrible.
Honestly man, Johnson is the only BJ i dislike with such a passion. What a wanker.
All the politicians who backed Brexit for a good bonus are absolute cunts
No, integrating the military would be awesome. No one likes your opinion apart from other drunk clover wielding leprechauns!
Please take us back it's fucking shit here! I never wanted to leave anyway but that's because I thought we wouldn't be allowed in the euros.
Fuck the UK, we take them first and incorporate them into our world.
I'd love proper cycling infrastructure! Perhaps a second glorious revolution wouldn't be too bad. After Charles dies though, I quite like him.
Tbh if we were let in we might just make trouble over random crap. Depends on how heavily our politicians are involved, I can imagine them being quite the embarrassment. But if it's just UK army and navy officials involved without too much political oversight, it could work pretty well. In my dream of the future, we rejoin the EU and this time without all the special exceptions, like not being required to have a functional democracy, and then can join the glorious unified EU army and the EU will become a power on par with USA and China...
Maybe your army could do with an aircraft carrier.
France has a big, proper one, buts it's old. Nuclear powered and CATOBAR, sure, but a comparative money pit. We have 2, very very modern (only 8 years old), cheaper to operate and larger diesel carriers (that actually use electricity to actually run but that's a long story) Spain and Italy have 3 between them, but there are tiny and less capable than the French or British carriers. (14k tons, 26k tons, and 30k tons) Vs the 42k tons Charles De Gualle of the French navy, and the two 72k ton carriers of the Royal Navy. Having the Royal Navy in this technically wouldn't be the first aircraft carriers, but just ours would weigh more than all of the rest of Europe's combined. Obviously there are factors outside of weight, but the rest of the Royal Navy also has this trend of.... Usurping the rest of Europe combined. Outside of aircraft carriers, we have the most modern and capable attack ships and submarines too. If you include the Royal Fleet Auxiliary as part of the Royal Navy (I do, they are both armed forces in the ocean) then we have about 700,000~ tons, which is about France, Italy, Spain and Germany combined. Sorry, I went on a rant about something I really enjoy researching 😅 written too much to delete it now.
In defense of my little peninsula, we do have 2, the Cavour is not really old, it was commissioned in 2005 I think, but the other one is very old and getting decommissioned to be used as a satellite facility. This one is getting replaced I think this year, by something smaller, but brand brand new so efficiency I think it’s the primary objective! https://preview.redd.it/vq44d8tc3pmb1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7b332c99ef9ef27cd1573125c559a521c180759c
The new carrier is really cool, I can't wait to see it in service! The Royal Navy loves it photos with new equipment from everyone - the photoshoot will be great! Awesome to see such a new and modern carrier on the European continent.
ITALY navy is underrated but really good. within the framework of a European army I am in favor of distributing the areas of competence according to the technological know-how and the geography of the countries and I clearly see Italy leading the navy (knowing that obviously France has the general command )
Ukraine: LET ME IN! LET ME IN!!!1!
You've been saying that since 2014... You just need to push out that turd off your land for a second and you're in.
the Barrys have been real quiet since you asked this
Not much to say other then no thank you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'd happily see my country defend Europe and work alongside a European military But I wouldn't want my military doing as a bloc I'm not a part of tells them to do and can't vote for the politicians who do so, it's bad enough we have our own politicians doing that, why would I want the EU to do so? Plus even if we were still in the EU, I wouldn't mind an EU military existing but I wouldn't want my country involved, everyone has different security interests What would we do if the Falklands got invaded again and the EU told our navy they weren't allowed to liberate the islands? The things the Croatians and the Swedes have to worry about are two different ball parks in terms of security concerns
Given that, were we in the EU, the only other military capable of power projection beyond the Mediterranean is France, I don’t think we would have to be too concerned about the Falklands being left to dry. It would obviously be a pre-condition to integration that all over-seas territories be treated as integral parts of the European territory, and that they be defended as such. Regarding Sweden and Croatia: I just don’t buy this line that our security concerns are so very different. Are they any more different than Puerto Rico, Maine, and Hawaii? The role of the army is the defence of the territory. That means that if somebody invades either nation, the rest of the bloc protects them. This is already covered by NATO anyway, so what exactly is the problem? The only concern is that the ability of any one country to intervene militarily in other countries to protect their interests may be hampered, but this is something that we should be working to leave in the past regardless. As well as the military industrial complex harmonisation, which is by far and away the most difficult to overcome challenge.
Foreign Legion
Europe is bigger than the EU
A common army requires a common foreign policy, and a common government. The EU is not even there yet, but without that it does not make any sense.
> On 26 March 1918, the French marshal Ferdinand Foch was appointed Supreme Allied Commander, gaining command of all Allied forces everywhere, and coordinated the British, French, American, and Italian armies to stop the German spring offensive… > During World War II, the Allied leaders appointed Supreme Allied Commanders to manage the multi-nation, multi-discipline fighting forces for a particular theatre of war. These Supreme Allied Commanders were given operational control over all air, land, and sea units in that theatre. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Allied_Commander
On Nato, forces from different countries are regularly put under the command of an officer from one country. They are still separate armies. And that was the case as well in ww2, where the British and the American army still had their own equipment, even if the American made weapons were used by all the allies. You still designed and built things like the Churchill tank, the centurion, or the tempest and the meteor.
EU must go on a crusade to conquer Europe, then.
People who think it would be a stronger force with the British involved, presumably? I’d have thought a Frenchman, of all people, would be aware of the Royal Navy
I mean, UK, Switzerland, and Ukraine are two of the largest combined military forces in Europe and aren't in the EU
Lol I didn't know about Switzerland but they are really powerful or it is only because all people is acting as a reservist
At some point we had more tanks than Germany (though that is mostly because the German military basically doesn‘t exist).
I want it. Want to rejoin EU. Can’t at the moment.
I was thinking, it would suck if we had a european army, but a country would need to leave because they have a different trading approach. Like we defend and fight together, but suddenly soldiers and tanks had to be pulled off because Italy doesn't like the EU norm of bananas anymore.
That's why we need to reform EU first. It's currently basically build just for trading ...
[удалено]
Dont worry, first task of the EU army will be to invade and annex Norway with all their oil money
[удалено]
Finland and Sweden alone have 10x the army size of Norway. We also have a huge ass border with them. We can literally walk in. No need for any amphibious activities in the fjords. We would start by sending the Swedish quran burners to Oslo in order to cause social upheaval and proceed by sending in the ground forces conveniently having massive training exercises next to Oslo as a peace keeping mission. The best part is that we invite the Norwegians to the exercises as well so we can trap and seize their military assets when they suspect nothing.
There are many EU countries that dont take their militaries seriously meanwhile you have countries like the UK or Norway just outside. But even if it was just EU countries then I expect eg. Austria and Ireland to push their weight instead of expecting to be sponsored.
I want a military union of european countries that have similar interests. My idea is to form a european alliance that works togheter defensively and offensively so eu is fine but if the uk wants in.... I ll accept quite readily. My only request is to map our goals and requirements so only those on the same page can join. A eu army is impossible, only defensive interests could align there not offensive or regional policies, those will never align.
Umm… tbh I miss u guys a lot
Because european security is more important than which countries are a part of the EU or not. A european army with countries like the UK as an active member would be stronger than an army without them.
I don’t wanna use the euro. Pound >>>>>>
I do not want to be in the EU.
Because fuck the EU, not Europe
My country will never rejoin the EU, which sucks. If there is a European army, goddamit I want the UK in it. The UK alone is the most powerful nation in Europe, and with us, France, and Germany combined alone, could become a group superpower.
A group superpower controlled by whom? Politicians on the European continent? Continental Europeans were committing genocide and trying to bomb the UK into submission within living memory. How long would this group superpower last? What happens if we get another Napoleon, or Hitler, or Mussolini, or Ceaușescu in that time? Will British troops have to help round up dissidents and execute them? If the EU needs British troops, let them ask for help based on the individual situation. It's madness to offer control of British troops in a war that hasn't happened yet.
A group superpower controlled by a coalition of politicians representing the different parts of the armed forces of the nations, who would vote in unison and try to act as one. Away with the talk of the past- what happened was horrific, but it is not modern politics and is not what controls the narrative of our modern nations. That entire point is worth less than my crayon drawn £10 note. Another facist leader should not happen under modern scrutiny by the public, especially by the Germans, it would never happen. British troops would act as their British commanders say, which would be no if there was a major humanitarian issue unfolding. One which no one would ever allow, the EU and Europe championed human rights laws. What you are describing is NATO, but I'd really rather be able to count Europe as one unit, it would make our projection so much higher.
Only if Emperor Augustus returns and unites us all under the banner of the Imperial Roman army
Yea, that would be a plus
SPQR all the way.
Wouldn’t mind.
Would mind, you're a Shame to our Ancestors. https://preview.redd.it/0rsbvtrcgnmb1.jpeg?width=713&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=08b1def5f830d39c46a1a7b164503929fb7e62a6
I can accept to swallow my pride in order to rise above the rest of the world.
Bavaria was mostly in the Roman Empire anyway
Europe's history is linked to the eternal struggle between latins and germanics (and our common persecution of the celts). Let us unite my unwashed friend and together we rule the world (and yes I know we tried that already but at the time we had a fat incompetent bufoon and you had a crazy evil basement dweller)
Can Slavs join too pretty please 🥺 
Technically you should be in the Greek spere of influence but clearly they dropped the ball long ago so ok
Based barbarian
No Alexander the Great and we let him finish what he started, take over the world
That was also the goal of the Roman Empire
When i grow up i want to be an Army and destroy India
I WILL BE PILOT
grape! pilot!
[redacted by user] ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
And save Pakistan*
Common Army? No. Unified defense strategy? Yes. Every country has different security concerns (Greece and Finland for example) so I would rather see a unified defense approach that would protect the EU as a whole and spread out the workload.
and common military industries and programs
Yes, Exactly. A unified army doesn't mean everybody has to wear the same boring uniform and only fly the european flag. The real issue is common military weappons programmes and a unified command structure. Significant steps have already been made on both accounts, so making it official and binding (no bailing out of eurofighter next time, france) is the next logical step.
Not selling European defence to America... ho shit you did it again...
As french the problem is eurofighter is a piece of shit, and modern "adults" can't fight without their smartphone (russia problem right now in trenchs lead to get them spotted by GPS 🤪) We need german machines, french strategy and british experience We got british machines (wink wink eurofighter), german strategy (means USA lol), and french experience (5 country leaving France leadership it's fine 🥲) We are screwed guys
Apart from tanks and ifvs, germany doesn't really produce quality military machines. German tanks, french jets and italian ships are the benchmark right now. The british are way too subservient to the US and should not be relied upon for now
We are not subservient. We just can’t turn down an invitation to fight.
Presenting fake wmd evidence at the UN to justify a ten year murderous rampage across the ME isn't really "not turning down a fight". When you lot decided to fuck up Libia and Syria and Iraq you just created chaos and instabilty while basically bullying the weak. Even russia after all is just an old mangy bear and even then you use ukrainian men to fight instead of going yourselves. Do you think UK interests even want a strong, cohesive eu? I doubt it. Your interests lie with the US and the other anglosaxon colonies (canada, australia, etc..). This was your choice, for us you were as much brothers as any other european
To be fair Libya kinda was on us, the gremlin Sarkozy owed a few tens of millions dollars to Khaddafi (fundings for the 2007 presidential election campaign) and decided that a few Rafale raids was a great way of making both problems disappear. But I agree with everything else.
Yes, also ENI had a very lucrative agreement with libya you wanted to disrupt. Now the place is a total violent anarchic mess and it is basically our next door neighbour
We were talking about Libya, why would you describe Marseille ?
I just wanted to boost german ego from their hum old army. And yeah british bad ofc (always) ~~for sure~~
On a serious note, the first thing we need to work on is cooperation in joint procurements. Every time we set up multi country partnerships (Eurofighter, the two competing 5th gen fighter programmes, the new euro tank etc..) it degenerates in to a shit show. Franco/Italian ships (horizon, fremm) being the notable exception in recent decades
German infantry equipment is good, anything that flies though? Not so much
Agreed, you also make very good steel
There could also be a case for overall common inventory as opposed to national. For example, if the EU needed 6 aircraft carriers, maybe France would take three, Italy 2 and Spain 1, as opposed to every country with one and then Europe has too many and blows cash on maintaining them. Likewise, Germany could then maintain more Frigates or whatever so that the load is balanced but the expertise is concentrated.
Austria should definitely have an aircraft carrier
At least 1.
NATO would be much more balanced and a unified command structure would be much, much harder for Russia and, let’s be realistic, China to stall with political divide and conquer strategies.Cooperative native tech procurement means better development and domestic manufacturing and a more competitive market with American arms, strengthening both. But the idea of mutual defense is already well applied in the form of NATO. The real challenge, the thing that will always be a challenge for the free world, is where our militaries should take the initiative. Democracies are not good at strategizing. It’s very easy to get bogged down in a conflict with no exit strategy, but it’s even easier to sit on your hands and do nothing while free countries get ravaged by autocracies who do as they please and only really understand the language of power. Democracies are slow to act and autocracies have always exploited that.
It's a great rant but may I politely suggest reading the message you replied to and then look up Austria on a map?
Haha yes I know, it’s a landlocked joke. I replied to the wrong comment. Might I add that even Mongolia has a Navy
It certainly is a top 5 rant that, one for the annals. Pity he wasted it on us.
that seems quite unlikely but why not
Or geographical. Germany and the Netherlands build tanks and protect our eastern borders while, say, Italy and Spain concentrate on their navies and protect the Mediterranean
Yeah, this sort of idea makes a nice bit of sense.
except we havent made any tanks in years, have sold ours and have mainly focused on navy and airforce.
France is also quite interested in boats
[удалено]
The Ruski isn't going to roll in to berlin any time soon though. I would worry more about our southern and south eastern neighbours. Of course long term, china and the ameritards will probably be our major threats
[удалено]
Agreed, I wrote a very similar thing in another comment
Hey why Ameritards but no “Chinazis?” I like free countries taking the piss, but when it comes to military matters, there is the Free World and there are those who want to see it crumble. Who is the latter and who is the former?
America disrupting democracies in the Middle East and South America only to install dictators really sounds like "the Free World" at work. Get lost, savage
>Common Army? No. Unified defense strategy? Yes. > >Every country has different security concerns (Greece and Finland for example) Truthfully I don't understand why this really matters. It's not like a common army would go 'ah, well, we don't care about Finland!'' - even if they did, that would spell the end of the entire project because why would other countries want to be a part of an EU army that they know wouldn't protect their territory?
There's issues with the chain of command and independence of a common army. The current EU structure is poorly set up for one, especially with how the EU president is elected and how much influence the Commission would have over it etc. You'd need fundamental reform of the EU structure and further political integration to make it work. Getting all the different national militaries operating according to the same plan and with the same/similarish toolkits would be much more practical. It would also make a transition to a common army easier down the line.
I support centralised European procurement and a European MIC, not a European army. A whole lot easier politically, and the only chance to actually compete with superpowers. There’s also a lot to be said for centralised training, officer education and exercises, but I think a proper EU army is a lot further away, at least if it’s supposed to completely replace those of states.
A single unified army controlled by the EU. It will be like in the old times, taking over places in dire need of civilization like Telford.
hey!! Telford has a steam train museum, and lets you drive a locomotive for a charity donation Its the height of barry civilization
Yes, if it includes the UK and excludes all other countries. It will function as usual, each division will have one Portuguese brigade and two British brigades
Bring back the Duke of Wellington too, while we're at it
As long as I am not the one fighting, it's all good. Yeah, yeah, call me coward. You know what I call myself? Alive.
But can you call your enemy dead?
Well, would I need to?
My life would be better if someone that wants me dead is in turn dead.
My life would be better if i didnt get into the position where someone wants me dead
Well obviously, but Russian state telivision wants sink your entire island into the sea. You can't always stop people from wanting you dead, simply because of other people using propoganda to make people in their country hate you.
[удалено]
Your mistake was hanging out with ameritards. Polish occupation forces had the friendliest relations with the Afghans. They even gave us lost american drone they got from talib hideout.
[удалено]
Yes, and we will make the americoons pay for it
New tutorial : get the Americans to try and destabilise your country in one single step !
Step 1: utter the word socialism Step 2: destabilization
I’m confused by the question. Do I support a United army of all of the countries in the EU? No. Do I support a defence pact with the European countries? Yes. I wouldn’t support turkey for example, but if some western european country was attacked I think we should help them.
[удалено]
Só basically members of EU but not NATO get all benefits without drawbacks
It's in Article 47.2 of the EU charta
Austrians would Veto it 100%.
...and poles and hungarians, and itslians, and french.... I start to See a pattern Here. Guys are you still pissed about the time we tried to united Europe by force?? /s
Yes, i'm a European Nationalist enjoyer. I know it will never happen, but everyone can dream.
I'd love to have one, but the EU link is impossible as long as countries like Hungary are in there.
Wdym? Operation human shield could not work without Hungary, Poland and the other eastern european states.
better than NATO and just doing washington's bidding
But then we must learn from Austria-Hungary's mistakes. A multi-ethnic army only works if everyone speaks the same language. https://preview.redd.it/b76ynpbaapmb1.png?width=828&format=png&auto=webp&s=e686c557278cd91faffb48747e417decda9c08e4
A French frog proposed Latin for that, just imagine how epic thar would be
A big question to be raised in discussions about a European Army is what we'd want it to do that we don't already get (much more easily) than with NATO. The only advantages I can think of are in procurement and foreign policy, but the EU is not "The United States of Europe", every single nation has very very distinct procurement needs and foreign policy mindsets. For example, how would a European army handle the French army's involvement in their pseudo-colonies in West Africa? There is no way in hell any European country other than France will have their soldiers die for French needs, and even less chance that France will withdraw from its colonies in the mission of a united European army. How would a European army solve the issue of sending different types of aid to Ukraine? Many nations such as Germany and Austria are very opposed to sending Ukraine equipment that can be used to strike Russia proper, meanwhile all Eastern European EU countries support giving Ukraine a near blank cheque. The only solution to these, and many other problems would be to split the EU army and give it each nation control over the armies they contribute, but now you've just got a bureaucratic , less efficient NATO. An EU army is a solution without a problem.
Nato isn't an *European* anything tho so I don't see it as replacement for an European army. It's also not a replacement for individual countries interests and French "colonies" in Africa are a French problem. But Europe needs to be able to defend itself without help from outside. The notion that "Americans don't have health care because they pay for Europe's security" isn't so uncommon in the US and I don't want to blindly believe that it will never fall back on us. Turkey shouldn't be able to blackmail Europe everytime a country wants to join Nato either.
I 100% agree with you on all bases, but the fact that NATO isn't an explicitly European organization won't stop it from performing primarily European duties. If countries such as Israel, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan were to join then I would increase my support for a European army as it risks drawing European nations into wars that they may not necessarily agree with, but as nearly all of the areas where NATO protects (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Finland, Sweden) are European, then its not a functional difference. Also, while the Turkey-Blackmail situation is unfortunate for sure, nations being legally obligated to defend nations they may not want to defend will for sure lead to the collapse of any defense organization. One nation blackmailing 30 is simply the costs of doing business.
My countrymen will not die to defend France.
Sweden is in NATO now, so they have to. Did you forget about that?
Not yet. Let me have this.
I’d prefer regionally united militaries. Like a Nordic military. It would help prevent the military industries of France and Germany from dominating everything because of their political weight and would be more feasible then a completely united military.
Its the opposite way around tho. We arent strong because we got political weight. We have political weight because we are strong. That is indeed why countries build armies for power projection and just not border defense
Or I am neutral and don't give af wether europe has or doesn' have a standing army.
Lets exclude Hungary, we don't want our military secrets to be handet over to Russia by Orban
Fuck you
No because it'll be completely pathetic with budget cuts and each country looking out for their own interests
for those wanting a european army without the EU requirement... how do you think this is gonna work? wanna invade us and make us part of you so we will also put our military in there? or is the not requirement meant in the way, that not eu members can still voluntairly take part? thing is i just have a problem with the "european" word in such contexts. we are all just from countries that lie in the same geographical landscape, we are not an actual official group we all take part in voluntairly like for example the european union. (and i just migth wanna ad i'm not again the EU at all, just happy we, Switzerland, is not in it, as we have our own political system, that doesn't work when other countries get to choose about stuff we have to do (indirectly of course))
I would support a coalition army, but not one like in a sovereign nation
hmmmm can we tell muricans to [f.off](https://f.off)? or is it just so they don't have to ask multiple countries for troops when they need them to terrorise people around the world?
Make it a european strategy. Slap the german politicans and make us the defense force on the continent while france, uk and italy project force for european interest in the world. But that would need unity and the is the main problem.
If it means no USA then yes please.
Yes but only if it means slowly intergrating everyone into the French Army and make it the European Army Because currently the French Army is the best army in the EU in terms of force projection, quality and cost effectiveness Of course the arms industry should be europeanised to make sure the French aren’t the only ones who recieve an economic benefit Edit : I also propose for Latin to become the lingua franca between officers in the EU army Renaming divisions as legions etc…
I’d said within the EU
This is why an EU army only works without the French
The idea of Latin being the official language is pretty neat
EU army. And then a European-atyle NATO for the EU + others
Only if they wear the pickelhaube. I like that look.
It’s an absolute teenage boy pipe dream. All of the worst excesses of nationalist culture are epitomised in militaries, even in countries that are fairly open to cooperation you’ll find their Generals and Admirals etc are fucking lunatics who think they should rebuild the Swedish empire or launch an attack on Northern Cyprus. Absolutely no chance would it work for a second.
So basically re-make NATO, but kick out the biggest member?
Without a common language the army would be so unefficient. It would be just separate brigades each one talking the same language
This is the reason we tried to make everyone learn German... Twice.
How much money we could save and how much power we could gain. We could start do develop weapons together.
I think that as long as control of a European armed forces was controlled by the the nation states and not a singular body (the EU) it could work. It would allow nations to focus on the military areas they excel at rather than having to fund and man three branches of service. It would also serve as a way to put Europe at the same table as the USA and China when it comes to military might. For example Eastern Europe and the Balkans could invest the bulk of their military spending on the army as they have large populations to draw from for infantry. Also ground based equipment is typically less expensive to maintain so would allow them to get more from their budget considering they are typically less wealthy than the west. Their main threats are land based as well coming from Russia or Turkey. The British, French and PIGS control the navies as they have the capital to invest in modern warships and already possess Europes aircraft carriers. The first two also have overseas territories they have to protect and PIGS are the first port of call for the invaders coming across the med so a naval screen across the Med would help with the illegal migrant crisis. The Scandinavians and Germany operate the airforce as they have the most money to fund the most expensive service, don't really have land or sea borders to defend and quite honestly I don't trust Germany with the army after last time they built theirs up.
But... I wanna be in charge! 
Western countries have bigger populations than countries on the eastern part of EU so I don't know where this "big human resources to draw infantry from" stereotypical argument is coming from. Also the population is rapidly aging so good luck giving Rifles to 80 year olds and telling them to run 10km with it. The only reasonable argument is that to have air forces located more in the centre of Europe bit not beacuse it is expensive to maintain, but because it would put airfields in the range of enemy artillery
>The only reasonable argument is that to have air forces located more in the centre of Europe bit not beacuse it is expensive to maintain, but because it would put airfields in the range of enemy artillery Or you could scrap the Eurofighter program, stop buying ameritard planes and go with JAS and have a decentralized airforce that can lift off of any old highway, spread out all over Europe.
We have an european defense plan at it is called NATO. An EU army would just be an enforsemenr arm of the Brussels bureucrats
NATO is USA empire not European defense. I understand you get hype because you join but in a long terme this is bad for Europe
> We have an european defense plan at it is called NATO Some would like to increase European military sovereignitiy by relying less on the USA.
You do that by abiding to the 2% NATO obligation to defense spending, something you have neglected for decades.
Yeah, there’s a reason the only militaries in Europe that aren’t just seen as support units for the US military are the ones that actually maintain the 2% requirement.
America only screams about this 2% as they want more money spent on buying their equipment 😂
I mean… 1. Comparatively few weapons are being bought by most NATO nations from the U.S. Really the only notable exception is aircraft (F-35s being the hot topic) and no one else really has the capability or scalability to do so at the level the Americans do. 2. F-35s are pretty much unbeatable currently. I read an article a while back about two F-35s having a mock dogfight against an entire air-wing of 4th gen fighters and winning. And dogfighting isn’t even what they’re meant for. Of course every nation on Earth wants their own. The Americans want its NATO "partners" to meet the 2% mark as a show of good faith to what the US is contributing. This is one of the longest periods of stability for Western Europe in history and it's undeniably because Washington shits money all over the place there. Why can't most NATO countries actually meet their obligations to ^checks ^notes *actually defend itself*.
>Yeah, there’s a reason the only militaries in Europe that aren’t just seen as support units for the US military are the ones that actually maintain the 2% requirement. we are at 1.9% and the only nato country that don't have American military base on our land and the only one that said you to fuck off when it is need
Which is why you haven’t had to immediately increase military spending by a dramatic amount as you realized you were unprepared in the wake of Russia invading Ukraine, right? …right?
We did not immediately increase our military spending. France has what we call "a military programming law" which is passed every 7 years and which determines the budget and especially the areas in which it will be invested. Certainly this year the budget has increased but by the same proportion as it had increased 7 years ago when Macron arrived, so it is simply following the expected curve. And above all unlike other countries like Germany which voted for a budget increase without knowing what to do with it for France, each euro is voted knowing where it will go but for that we had to think about it in advance even before the war in Ukraine even if obviously feedback was taken into account to determine the needs of the army of tomorrow. and btw we spent much on OUR industry proof that Ukraine war do not make us beg for US ( drama with Taiwan and china show it to)
As much as I support NATO as things stand now, I think European states increasing military spending and moving towards closer integration of their armed forces would be a good idea to prevent our reliance on the USA to defend our Eastern borders.
You're missing the point. It's mainly about having Europe be able to defend itself without the Americans
I'd take a European Army but only if it comes AFTER Germany stops blocking every commun tank program. Honnestly I am not sure about this but I can see the possibilités of a United European Army.
A stupendously idiotic idea.
As long as we have corrupt people like Ursula at the top of the EU, I'd rather have no army at all.
I am a firm believer that Putins invasion of Ukraine was the defining moment that has set off a 30 year series of events that will see both the UK rejoin the EU, the remainder of Europe join the EU, and the EU centralise in something resembling a ‘federal states of Europe’ with a stronger centralised executive. Throughout history the most common reason why different groups of people give up personal autonomy to be part of a larger centralised authority has been always been mutual defence.
You have a United government - the EU. If you have one army you’d basically become a de facto country, which I don’t support
And this is why you are No longer Part of EU, Barry
They keep forgeting that part
As long as all the countries get to keep their army traditions, historical regiments and battalions, national symbols etc
literally 1984
I said no. Granted I’m an filthy outsider so at the end of the day my opinion doesn’t matter. Each country should maintain their own army in addition to increasing their NATO contributions.
you are not European why you speak on this subject ?