Discussion
I think an EU Army is crucial, to be honest.
You've got a (for the moment) contiguous strip of land with intertwined political and economic structures, and you've got a necessarily borderless region within.
You need a force that can defend the external borders in a cohesive and integrated way if there are no internal structures to control the flow of people and goods.
And there can't really be any internal borders - particularly in the West and the centre - because, as in the North of Ireland, there are roads where you drive across the border several times to get somewhere else in your own country.
You've got a (for the moment) contiguous strip of land with intertwined political and economic structures, and you've got a necessarily borderless region within.
You need a force that can defend the external borders in a cohesive and integrated way if there are no internal structures to control the flow of people and goods.
And there can't really be any internal borders - particularly in the West and the centre - because, as in the North of Ireland, there are roads where you drive across the border several times to get somewhere else in your own country.
Calorus said:
I think an EU Army is crucial, to be honest.
You've got a (for the moment) contiguous strip of land with intertwined political and economic structures, and you've got a necessarily borderless region within.
You need a force that can defend the external borders in a cohesive and integrated way if there are no internal structures to control the flow of people and goods.
And there can't really be any internal borders - particularly in the West and the centre - because, as in the North of Ireland, there are roads where you drive across the border several times to get somewhere else in your own country.
So why aren't they proposing an EU Border Force instead of an Army?You've got a (for the moment) contiguous strip of land with intertwined political and economic structures, and you've got a necessarily borderless region within.
You need a force that can defend the external borders in a cohesive and integrated way if there are no internal structures to control the flow of people and goods.
And there can't really be any internal borders - particularly in the West and the centre - because, as in the North of Ireland, there are roads where you drive across the border several times to get somewhere else in your own country.
eharding said:
You're still thinking in terms of NATO, and the percentage of individual GDPs of organisation members deemed reasonable to meet treaty obligations, with all the duplication of support infrastructure in each NATO member this entails.
Like it or not, the EU vision is of a single defence force for a politically unified EU. Now, you might not like the concept, but that's where they're coming from.
If we're thinking of the Russians as the principal adversary, and merging the 2016/2017 figures, then a Russian GDP of ~ $1.3 trillion vs a defence budget of ~$70 billion gives a percentage of about 5% of GDP on defence.
EU GDP is roughly $19.7 trillion, and post Brexit minus the UK $2.6 trillion GDP that comes down to, say ~$17 trilliion. To match the Russan defence budget purely in dollar terms, you're looking at sub 0.5% of total EU GDP.
Obviously, the Russians appear to get more bang for their buck by having large scale conscription, lower standards and cost of living of the civilian workforce and largely not giving a monkey's about any form of health and safety concern for anybody in the supply chain or the military operators, and generally being a bit of a gangster state; but directed correctly, the EU clearly has the combined economic capacity to outspend the principal threat by several times based on GDP alone, without approaching the NATO 2% guideline figure.
Feel free to plug your own figures into the sums, but for an EU that - now minus the UK - apparently really *is* all about ever closer union, you can see the potential. Whether it comes to that remains to be seen.
Most EU nations have been spending not very much on defence for decades. To get the sort of defence capabilities they would need to stand alone will need a massive uptick in expenditure. One that very few member states can afford economically, let alone politically. Like it or not, the EU vision is of a single defence force for a politically unified EU. Now, you might not like the concept, but that's where they're coming from.
If we're thinking of the Russians as the principal adversary, and merging the 2016/2017 figures, then a Russian GDP of ~ $1.3 trillion vs a defence budget of ~$70 billion gives a percentage of about 5% of GDP on defence.
EU GDP is roughly $19.7 trillion, and post Brexit minus the UK $2.6 trillion GDP that comes down to, say ~$17 trilliion. To match the Russan defence budget purely in dollar terms, you're looking at sub 0.5% of total EU GDP.
Obviously, the Russians appear to get more bang for their buck by having large scale conscription, lower standards and cost of living of the civilian workforce and largely not giving a monkey's about any form of health and safety concern for anybody in the supply chain or the military operators, and generally being a bit of a gangster state; but directed correctly, the EU clearly has the combined economic capacity to outspend the principal threat by several times based on GDP alone, without approaching the NATO 2% guideline figure.
Feel free to plug your own figures into the sums, but for an EU that - now minus the UK - apparently really *is* all about ever closer union, you can see the potential. Whether it comes to that remains to be seen.
You think that the EU is capable of running anything efficiently? Good luck with that one.
Even bigger luck getting the majority of member states to agree to handing over defence capability to the EU. There is no appetite at all for that sort of integration as I understand it. But it will be interesting to watch the EU go about it.
Why do you think the EU has been very quiet on how they intend to plug the gap in their finances that our departure will (would...) leave? It's all well and good noting it would "only" be 0.5% of combined EU GDP...but when it comes to member states stumping up more/getting a reduction in their payments for something very few of their electorates want, that's when the fun starts.
I can also see a large upscaling of German military power being really well received globally. Especially by the Putins of this world. I'm not convinced that's the way to maintain a peaceful outlook on the continent of Europe. But let's see...the EU's proponents seem to want to take credit for it bring peace to the continent. Let's see what happens if they ditch NATO and build up their own forces
Personally, as long as we stay well clear of it they can do what they please. But it won't end well. If the EU is to move "ever closer" more quickly, they would do well to focus on other necessities in that respect first. But then I guess it's hardy to sell a bogeyman to further your ends on fiscal and political union that it is with defence
EU politicians need to be far more open with their electorates, and far more prepared to listen, even when (especially when!) they are being told what they do not want to hear.Jazzy Jag said:
Calorus said:
I think an EU Army is crucial, to be honest.
You've got a (for the moment) contiguous strip of land with intertwined political and economic structures, and you've got a necessarily borderless region within.
You need a force that can defend the external borders in a cohesive and integrated way if there are no internal structures to control the flow of people and goods.
And there can't really be any internal borders - particularly in the West and the centre - because, as in the North of Ireland, there are roads where you drive across the border several times to get somewhere else in your own country.
So why aren't they proposing an EU Border Force instead of an Army?You've got a (for the moment) contiguous strip of land with intertwined political and economic structures, and you've got a necessarily borderless region within.
You need a force that can defend the external borders in a cohesive and integrated way if there are no internal structures to control the flow of people and goods.
And there can't really be any internal borders - particularly in the West and the centre - because, as in the North of Ireland, there are roads where you drive across the border several times to get somewhere else in your own country.
The Army part is to cover the needless duplication; 27 separate structures, each paying for basics rather than 1 structure that covers the basics once and can implement the efficiencies of scales all of the way up, allowing broad based cooperation and integration in advanced systems.
Calorus said:
Jazzy Jag said:
Calorus said:
I think an EU Army is crucial, to be honest.
You've got a (for the moment) contiguous strip of land with intertwined political and economic structures, and you've got a necessarily borderless region within.
You need a force that can defend the external borders in a cohesive and integrated way if there are no internal structures to control the flow of people and goods.
And there can't really be any internal borders - particularly in the West and the centre - because, as in the North of Ireland, there are roads where you drive across the border several times to get somewhere else in your own country.
So why aren't they proposing an EU Border Force instead of an Army?You've got a (for the moment) contiguous strip of land with intertwined political and economic structures, and you've got a necessarily borderless region within.
You need a force that can defend the external borders in a cohesive and integrated way if there are no internal structures to control the flow of people and goods.
And there can't really be any internal borders - particularly in the West and the centre - because, as in the North of Ireland, there are roads where you drive across the border several times to get somewhere else in your own country.
The Army part is to cover the needless duplication; 27 separate structures, each paying for basics rather than 1 structure that covers the basics once and can implement the efficiencies of scales all of the way up, allowing broad based cooperation and integration in advanced systems.
Calorus said:
They are as well - I think both are needed.
The Army part is to cover the needless duplication; 27 separate structures, each paying for basics rather than 1 structure that covers the basics once and can implement the efficiencies of scales all of the way up, allowing broad based cooperation and integration in advanced systems.
You know what? That's a good idea! Let's get the Yanks involved too to spread the cost by way of a treaty and think of a natty name.... Ohhh I dunno let's try:The Army part is to cover the needless duplication; 27 separate structures, each paying for basics rather than 1 structure that covers the basics once and can implement the efficiencies of scales all of the way up, allowing broad based cooperation and integration in advanced systems.
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
irocfan said:
Calorus said:
They are as well - I think both are needed.
The Army part is to cover the needless duplication; 27 separate structures, each paying for basics rather than 1 structure that covers the basics once and can implement the efficiencies of scales all of the way up, allowing broad based cooperation and integration in advanced systems.
You know what? That's a good idea! Let's get the Yanks involved too to spread the cost by way of a treaty and think of a natty name.... Ohhh I dunno let's try:The Army part is to cover the needless duplication; 27 separate structures, each paying for basics rather than 1 structure that covers the basics once and can implement the efficiencies of scales all of the way up, allowing broad based cooperation and integration in advanced systems.
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
NATO does not result in members abandoning core common elements of their defence. Each member state is still able to function autonomously and, indeed, has a say in what it does and does not get involved with under NATO (to a greater or lesser extent). Its function allows significantly more power to be brought to bear if required without every member having to be the biggest dog in the park.
I think what Calorus and others are getting at, to properly leverage "efficiencies" is to do away with elements in individual states. This would, in essence, render them incapable of operating autonomously.
If it's not that, then your point stands and the EU's approach is stupid. Which wouldn't surprise me at all. They're a poor halfway house in so many areas, why not mess this up too
FourWheelDrift said:
The German military is up s
t creek frankly. A German ‘Report on the Operational Readiness of the Bundeswehr’s Primary Weapons Systems’ was presented to Germany’s lower house of parliament in June. Stating less than a third of German military assets are operational and those operational are only used for an average of 4 months a year as the rest of the time they are undergoing repair or maintenance.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/less-third-german-...
Number of weapon systems ready for action:
Typhoon jets: 39 of 128
Tornado jets: 26 of 93
CH-53 transport helicopters: 16 of 72
NH-90 transport helicopters: 13 of 58
Tigre attack helicopters: 12 of 62
A400M transport aircraft: 3 of 15
Leopard 2 tanks: 105 of 224
Frigates: 5 of 13
Submarines: 0 out of 6
Maybe we should invade?
Too many Muslims with paved driveways. t creek frankly. A German ‘Report on the Operational Readiness of the Bundeswehr’s Primary Weapons Systems’ was presented to Germany’s lower house of parliament in June. Stating less than a third of German military assets are operational and those operational are only used for an average of 4 months a year as the rest of the time they are undergoing repair or maintenance.https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/less-third-german-...
Number of weapon systems ready for action:
Typhoon jets: 39 of 128
Tornado jets: 26 of 93
CH-53 transport helicopters: 16 of 72
NH-90 transport helicopters: 13 of 58
Tigre attack helicopters: 12 of 62
A400M transport aircraft: 3 of 15
Leopard 2 tanks: 105 of 224
Frigates: 5 of 13
Submarines: 0 out of 6
Maybe we should invade?
“French President Emmanuel Macron called Tuesday for a "real European army" as the continent marks a century since the divisions of World War I, to better defend itself against Russia and even the United States.”
https://www.thelocal.fr/20181106/macron-calls-for-...
https://www.thelocal.fr/20181106/macron-calls-for-...
BlackLabel said:
“French President Emmanuel Macron called Tuesday for a "real European army" as the continent marks a century since the divisions of World War I, to better defend itself against Russia and even the United States.”
https://www.thelocal.fr/20181106/macron-calls-for-...
https://www.thelocal.fr/20181106/macron-calls-for-...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff