A rule of thumb i like "there's no such thing as an ally but only common interests" When the common interests go, things start to fall apart until a new one comes around
And then we'll discover that Putin was a double agent for the EU intelligence all along, as he joined them right after the fall of the USSR. After all, didn't Putin work in east Germany during his KGB days?
Idk what you're talking about. We (Slovakia) have the above 2% military budget for the first time since our existence this year - and that's exactly what the graph is showing.
@@rezolutionist7715it's up to date on some countries and not so up to date on others then. for example germanys budget also hit 2.1% of GDP this year, which has been known for a while now. While "extremely" might have been a bit much, the point in general stands: its not up to date, so it should be dated
I don’t know why the EU expects the USA to protect them, strategically US EU relations are mutually beneficial but we need to be able to deter Russia by ourselves
but you all warmongering 1d10t5 keep saying russia won't win, so what's the need for all this? Are you saying russia is so strong and powerfull, that the entire european continent (except russia) must unite to face russia?
absolutely 0 benefit to be allied with the US it has caused europe more harm being pulled into the US wars than all the last internal conflicts of the last 80 years.....
Funny how the EU has near exact same territory has Germany had in 1943 + They are sending tanks against the russian's .... again. And ruled by a NON ELECTED gov in Brussel. Incredible how nobody makes the parallels and wake the f up. History trully repeat itself over and over again faking being something different.
Poland out there with Nearly 4% GDP going towards there Defence but Germany Italy and France ca barley scrap together 2% while having much larger economies is hilarious. Goes to show who really takes defence seriously.
Russian containment is your policy and follows your strategic interests. That's why your army is there, not because you are good samaritans. Europe's interest is to have cheap energy to keep its industry going.
6:00 Hard to believe but Orban is actually pro EU-army. He said this in 2022 after Russian invaded Ukraine: There is no European army, even though it is needed! There is no common defense policy, force development is uncoordinated. - listed Orbán, and then to the legitimate reporter's question about how the common defense policy can be reconciled with the needs of strong nation states, the Hungarian Prime Minister shared perhaps the most important thoughts of the interview: It is a mistake to treat the issue of European federalism as a black and white problem. There are areas that are better handled by nation states. However, there are also those in which we can only maintain our importance if we think in terms of a united Europe. One of these is the issue of defense policy. The states of continental Europe must work together to jointly achieve and defend our successes.
he is authoaritarian and a dictator... he would love nothing more than increasing totalitarianism in Europe. EU army will eventually be used against countries that doesn't fall in line with EU's policies.
People forget that Orban is pro-Orban, he would happily throw Putin under the bus if it suited his interest. He has mostly been like Erdogan, playing both sides to his advantage.
I'm a Eastern European who has lived in UK for a long time, I also served in the militray back home (within EU) and honestly I have always been for EU army. I don't care what globalism fears people have. Europe must be united. Even back in my military days, EU army was all about fast response units to promote efficiency and defensive capabilities between EU borders. We are a contintent full of countries that share defense interest. People that are anti EU and anti EU synergy in our military potentials are not looking out for the best interest of us Europeans.
I am so happy to finally see a fellow Eastern European support such an endeavour. Especially home there seem to be a lot of anti - EU retorique, not only among politicians and Russian propaganda, but also among a lot of common citizens. And I know the EU isn't perfect and sometimes they do make really shit decisions, but we as a whole are Europeans and must look out for our own common European interests. Not be subservient to Russia or the USA, or anyone else for that matter. Sadly things really don't seem to change for the better...
@@rosshilton Maybe you should pull your ass out of your ass and remember that Britain is a free country where people are allowed to express views and that doesn't make them any less pariotic.
Its truly a blessing to live as a european in times when almost the entire continent is working together and not against each other. No matter if army is created or not, we got eachothers backs eurobros
is this a farce ? Most of our capitals are living in permanent unrest, we've illegals pouring in from the south and our politicians seem totally fine with it.
It is about time.. We in Europe lived for years in our pink cloud believing that wars are over, that the Americans will protect us in a time of need, that all security problems can be solved through dialogue etc etc A European Army for the protection of the EU member states is a MUST,
@@ExarchGamingWhat about Europes unreliability for decades? We should be partners but right now it is all one sided so don’t apologize for me and millions of others who have had enough of protecting the world when most don’t want us or feel entitled to our taxpayer money for their own benefit.
Europeans themselves don’t even enlist for their own army. They are busy sucking up your welfare/social programs. How can you have an army in the first place?
At 2:17 you highlight Slovenia when you mention the formerly eastern bloc countries. Slovenia which was at that time part of Yugoslavia was during cold war a non-aligned nation!
@@combatepistemologist8382 i mean the chance are almost zero but it would be really funny if they really do that, and do you think Putin decision to outright invading Ukraine is a wise one?
An EU army would most likely be used against their own citizens rather than imaginary enemy. That would crush dissent & protests & allow the unelected EU Govt to rule unhindered.
@@aliceg6745 does France control the european bureaucracy right now ? Why would France control the European Army ? And why would the other members accept that ? It makes no sense
@@Chrysobubulle "Why would France control the European Army" ? Because it is the most powerful and strongest army in the EU and the only army with the nuclear power. It is a fact. So it seems logical to me that it is France which leads this army. If there is an economic union, it would seem logical to me that Germany would lead it, for example. For what ? Because Germany is the largest economy in the EU. It's all a question of logic.
Trump : hey, you need to start paying your responsibilities like we all agreed to! Europe : no Trump: fine then we won’t protect you. Europe : we will show that evil orange man quickly increase the military budget!
EU: Repeatedly collectively spends 3x Russias defense spend. Has 1.4m active personnel. Over 3 million reservists. Conscription in many countries. Is nuclear armed. Agreed common defense policy. Joint procurement program. Air and sea supremacy. Control of Aegean, Mediterranean, Baltic seas. 300 million population advantage. 10x Russias economy. Consistently beats Russia in practically every stat. Russia: How do I get past Avdiivka. Americans: We're protecting you.
LOL loved it ♥ Funny how the EU has near exact same territory has Germany had in 1943 + They are sending tanks against the russian's .... again. And ruled by a NON ELECTED gov in Brussel. Hummmmmm...... Incredible how nobody makes the parallels and wake the f up. History truly repeat itself over and over again faking being something different. Different names as cover up, but same actions, same intentions.
@@johnnykotletti4614 Stop the compliments, being compared with Trump, is like being compared with the person you admire the most. You're way to kind for your good.
@@TommyTipex "thank god we left" meanwhile the UK is coming apart at the seems, is poorer, and will likely balkanize in our lifetimes. And your still taking in immigrants, and will still go to America or the mainland for your defense xp. Brexit did literally nothing good for you, "thank god".
@@unyieldingsarcasm2505 Our ruling class had to punish the plebs for daring to defy them of course ergo the immigration and tanked economy. Dream on about 'balkanisation' as well, scotland don't have the bollocks to leave and everyone else is happy to be in the UK. As for defence I'm not massively worried about Russia's attack from St. Petersburg sailing past 10+ countries to strike or invade us lmao. What we did get out of it, is staying a sovereign nation, not a province of the EU run by people no one voted for, we'll see how long you can say the same.
Funny how the EU has near exact same territory has Germany had in 1943 + They are sending tanks against the russian's .... again. And ruled by a NON ELECTED gov in Brussel. Incredible how nobody makes the parallels and wake the f up. History truly repeat itself over and over again faking being something different. Different names as cover up, but same actions, same intentions.
The problem with NATO is that all members including US, Turkey and Hungry have to accept the decisions. Guess what, they don't have the same interests than Europe.
There is no reason why we just couldn’t make a new inner european coalition of willing and able countries to form a common security policy, synchronizing their defense industry, streamlining procurement processes and ultimately forming unified command structures for a common army. We don’t need the likes of Hungary to mess with the process.
So what happens to military spending on the national and NATO level if we are going to spend on the EU military? Money doesn’t come out of thin air! The GDP for welfare and social programs will be slashed and reallocated accordingly, unless you withdraw NATO.
An EU Army would not change NATO spending, it would just make spending here more efficiently as the joint procurement and development makes weapons cheaper. We could buy more stuff with the same money we spend due to the NATO framework on ourselves, of course the target would be for Europe to spend 2%, not single nations anymore. Would enhance NATO, make arms more cheaper and more effective
@@johnnykotletti4614Sure there are a lot of NATO expenses and Europe pay around 84% of them. Do you think that training, exercises, logistics and uperr management are for free?
Actually The way I see it NATO is almost the European Army, it just a matter of politely ask the US, Turkey and Hungary to leave. If they have different interests, why should Europe care with them? Remember, the only country that claim the article 5 was the US after 9/11, and all members joint them in the war.
They should do this. I’m sick of my tax dollars going to defend other countries. It’s not the US job to defend Europe. The US should fully pull out and let the Europeans fully defend themselves.
I don't even see Hungary as the biggest obstacle here, but rather Austria, because of our State Treaty and our obligation for perpetual neutrality from any military block. That thing is a holy cow in Austria's political circles, as well as the general populace. So in my opinion if an EU army would ever be created, it would be probably without any Austrian participation, I am afraid. Many people in Austria have become too comfortable with our neutral status. To many it seems as if they could raise our state treaty into the air, yell 'Neutrality!' three times and errect a magical protective shield over our country. The neutrality article might have helped Austria in the 50s and 60s, but formerly secret documents revealed after the 2000s, showed the USSR had nuclear missiles in Hungary (not even the Communist leadership of Hungary itself was aware of them), aimed at Vienna and other major cities as far West as Salzburg. Vienna itself was meant to be taken out preemptively by two 500 KT strong thermonuclear missiles. The warning time would have been probably just something in the range of two minutes or less. So in retrospect, it showed our neutrality was just a fig-leave for our own mental state: telling ourselves all will be good and nobody will come after us, should the worst ever come to pass. Nobody wanted to face reality and do what was necesary, like what Finland or Switzerland was doing with bunker projects or mentally and economically prerparing the populace for the possibility. Instead politicians could take large amounts of money to please the people to elect them. Thank you very much, Kreisky.
It's not just increasingly likely, it's necessary. It's not a question of pride, it's not a question of ideology, it's not a question of toughness. It's a question of survival.
Funny how the EU has near exact same territory has Germany had in 1943 + They are sending tanks against the russian's .... again. And ruled by a NON ELECTED gov in Brussel. Incredible how nobody makes the parallels and wake the f up. History truly repeat itself over and over again faking being something different. Different names as cover up, but same actions, same intentions.
Great! Just what we need: more taxes🎉. Can't buy a house, can't buy a car. Only thing we have is working and sleeping. Revolution is a thing of the past so we just gotta bend over n take it
Just an idea... Why not just require NATO membership for all EU countries? You could phase it in for existing EU countries not already in NATO but require for any new members.
Thing is it kind of feels like doing something as NATO requires the us to be on board with it. If they were to turn their back on us, we'd be left with a frozen NATO that could not provide leadership for eu countries.
@@grabediggerIt's officially recognized by the Elise (French Gov) as a fact. Was in the papers back then, where you sleeping under a rock of you have a 5 second memory span.
"When the facts change, I change my mind!" Something brexiters are incapable of even in the face of them destroying the UK. Then again, their leaders where always in biz with Putin!
what I want answered is simple; Who can block such an Eu army deployment. who has final say on where an EU army base can be built.. Just for an example; could the EU order an EU army base built in French overseas territories in the pacific Oceans, even if French politicians and local islanders was against it, but a majority of the EU wanted such a base built.
Before this plan can put in motion, top European leader has to make sure every member in the org. must pay up each due diligently and timely. Having one EU army to command is a costly proposition without a superpower at the side to take up the slack routinely left by defaulter. Talk is cheap, propose is easy, but walk the talk is much harder. 🥴🥴
I’m probably going to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I feel like this is the endgoal for the US. A strong EU with its own army aligned with the US beats a weak EU that needs the US to defend itself.
He's right, but it's his delivery that's all wrong, but he's going to backstab ukraine if he wins since it doesn't affect him,only financially, and trump loves money.
You probably don't realize how many wars we fought between ourselves. The EU, besides needing strong reforms, has been an absolute blessing for the peaceful life we enjoyed since after WW2
Nah. It was a baseless conspiracy theory back then. Nobody at the time was considering any such thing. They're considering it _now_ because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Farage, who was quite cushy with the Russian right, certainly didn't see that one coming.
In the past I thought EU army is a bad idea and was against it. After all we had NATO and national armies. But after 2022 I also agree that maybe there should be one. Not to mention even if all nations pool money together (that they spend nowadays) they could get better prices from bulk purchases.
I´m tired of Russia´s threaths from the East and MAGA´s blackmail from the West. It´s time for the EU to become a strong independent military force, and it needs to happen extremely fast.
The EU should establish the EF (European Federation) just like in Tom Clancy's EndWar thus forming it's own military, economy and political power easily capable in surpassing even the MAGA US and Russia.
@@DarkZerol We in ze WEF (world economic forum) would like to help you formulate your idea. You sound like a brave new leader. Europe needs people like you, freund. We need you.
The European Union when are you going to end homelessness within the EU there are too many people sleeping living on the streets in poverty please do something
I can remember Nick Clegg telling us that a EU army would never happen but off course we do have an army that is established and fully functional......Its called NATO, it has worked for decades and I see no need to fix something that works.
Nato is not an army. And the only reason Nato works is because of US participation. Without the US, the combined efforts of the national armies of Europe probably won't be able to provide that overwhelming power needed to be able to swiftly end any conflict that might appear on Europe's eastern front. An EU army can do that. And with regards to what was said by remainers during the Brexit years, times change. There were no plans for that back then because an EU army didn't seem necessary. It does seem necessary now.
But we do have the USA and they are indeed the backbone of the defence. But NATO has kept the peace among its members and that is a fact. Europe however must do more and spend more to at least get to 2%... The EU does not spend enough now and given past experience they would spend even less in the future. The EU is all talk they cannot organise anything effectively ....OMG defence in their hands....you have to be joking. @@Boomerrage32
It'll unlikely happen. Already today Scholz and Macron are having very different approaches when it comes to Russia. Imagine having the agreement of another 25 leaders...
EU army wouldn't be formed out of existing armies, it would be built from scratch. They would buy brand new weapons and weapon systems to supply the army.
@@salted6422 it is expensive! But we are not a collection of third world countries. Why not make your own weapons? Our economy would grow and new jobs would be created. It's not like we don't have any arms industry. New ones would have to be built across Europe
the equipment is suprisingly the easiest thing. You can standardise equipment just look at the NATO calibers, 7.62x51mm 5.56x45mm 12.7mm 105mm, 120mm and 155mm are everywhere.
Personally, I believe this fractionalized military would probably be counter-productive. Whether we like it or not, European people/countries/ideals still vastly differ from one another. Heterogeinity is not a good thing when it comes to your military, and I just cant imagine there wouldnt be any tensions related to what nationalities end up higher on the hierarchical ladder. If the day truly comes where all of Europe is threatened by an external power, there would be very high levels of cooperation anyway, only without the tensions of having all of those personnel under the same command.
I think the main arguement is very simple. Russia has switched their economy to that of a wartime economy that works and thrives during long wars with heavy casualties. The EU nations respective armies have been focused on specialized small scale operations. In a long drawn out war with high attrition we are woefully unprepared.
Europe needs to look after it's own defense and stop expecting me the US taxpayer subsidize their defense. The same applies to the other rich countries like Japan and South Korea that the US has security guarantees with.
I see USA now like a little child. For years and years: You don't need to have a big army, we will protect you. You don't need nukes, we have them for you. Now, when times at rough: why you do not protect yourself? We are sick of protecting you! Now take the case of my country, Romania: no US soldier ever fought for Romania but romanian soldiers fought and died for US in Afghanistan and Irak. We had a nuclear program in the '80s which US and URSS desperately fought to stop. Now you ask us why do we have to rely on your nuclear system to deter russia? Do you really want 27 countries in Europe to start Nuclear programs? Grow up man!
@@ciprian2106 No offense but you Romanians really need to look inwards for your problems lol. No amount of rationalizations will erase your past... President.
@@Klongu_Da_Bongu I think is very difficult for you to understand our history so maybe is better to not discuss about it. Also I think is difficult for you to understand your history and that's why you don't understand why Europe is in this situation with not very developed armies and no nuclear programs. Our past president was a direct consequence of us being trapped between the Europe's psychopat - russia and Europe's autist - Germany.
@@Lysandra-8 but you have in the past, and Germany is a leading nation in the EU. Becoming the dominant power in Europe dose not necessarily need to be by force, but it does require one or the other to be subservient to the other.
@@edwxx20001 in the past we did a lot of stupid things, but I'm sure we are smarter now. Germany is economically strong, but we don't seek to dominate militarily.
I think the army is largely already there, but also that a European army might not play nice with the specializations that have begun to form between different NATO member's armies. Only France currently has the ability to project military power abroad, for example. While Eastern European nations like Poland are heavily geared towards stopping a Russian invasion and not much else; You don't really have a common army if in every significant conflict, just a handful of countries will be doing most of the fighting because the rest aren't able to help much. Also, how would you decide to send in the troops...? Unanimity? If so, I think a European army wouldn't be much of a credible deterrent on the world stage if all it got to do was unambiguous self-defense. It'd be little more than a paper tiger.
As an American that serviced in the military. I honestly am surprised that the EU don’t already have a united Military. It would streamline logistics and help speed up communication in chain of command.
you are surprised? over all those decades, did you not notice anything how much every US administration did to prevent the Europeans from doing something exactly like this? when they didn't do it themselves they made the UK government foil any effort from within the EEC and EU. all this changed with Brexit and Trump.
Love how people in the comments don't see that a EU army will become more of a internal security service rather than a external force. This will result in a much more given power to the EU body to deal with member countries.
As a citizen of the Czech Republic, I will boycott the creation and functioning of the common army as much as I can. That's for sure. The EU is not a state. He has no public support for such ideas and therefore has no right to arise.
So how will a genuine 'EU Army' be deployed? Austria and the ROI are 'neutral' so won't contribute, yet such things in the EU require unanimity in votes. This would mean countries with no skin in the game could decide whether other countries' men go and fight - no accountability, not a good thing.
Funny how the EU has near exact same territory has Germany had in 1943 + They are sending tanks against the russian's .... again. And ruled by a NON ELECTED gov in Brussel. Incredible how nobody makes the parallels and wake the f up. History truly repeat itself over and over again faking being something different. Different names as cover up, but same actions, same intentions.
I think this is the wrong approach. No country will give up their army fully leaving themselves "defenseless". The only reasonable option is having a part of each country come together under the European flag to defend EU interests, essentially somewhat like NATO stationing troops on its eastern flank, although under national flags. On top of that, things like a European Aircraft carrier or European Nuclear deterrence are, I think, a rather reasonable thought. But at the end of the day, we probably wont have European defense projects with 27 partners. We are already struggling with FCAS because everyone wants the biggest part of the production in their country. We could not reliably give everyone a share of the production, like having Spain build a chassis and Latvia drilling in a few bolts. And while smaller nations do end up just buying US and European defense projects anyway I suspect they would make out a chance to get a pie of the collective defense budget by demanding some production be in their country. So for FCAS, MGCS and other major defense projects I dont think there will be full EU cooperation, it will rather stay like it is, with projects between France and Germany mainly, with Italy and Spain in the mix. But I would love it if we could stand together and developt weapons collectively. Maybe we have to rethink it tho, have an EU military that really just focuses on defense, learning the ins and outs of specifically EU territory, building up a nuclear arsenal for defense and pooling resources
Budget allocation is a major constraint as other countries' defense budgets are high. To keep up, they should spend a lot, which means less for the welfare of citizens.
Just keep in mind that it was exactly this - the entry of Ukraine into the EU with a common defence pact and the probability of an EU army - that directly led to Russia invading Ukraine….
It is one army unofficially. Some countries has more planes. Some has more artillery. Some has more ships. Whole EU army is complete, parts in each country could not defend by themselves. It is just a politics, to officially recognise as a single army.
An EU Armed Forces is an exceptionally bad idea. Policy alignment is very important, but an actual Armed Forces for the EU is a painfully stupid idea. So epically bad there is way too much to highlight in the comment section. But most notably is just how unnecessary such an Armed Forces is. NATO already provides an effective, and ever growing, defence force, as well as policy alignment for member states. And anyone thinking the US won’t honour the treaty is taking Trump too literally because a POTUS doesn’t have the right or authority to refuse to honour Article 5 of NATO… ironically for Trump and his ignorant supporters, the only time Article 5 has been used was to defend the USA, so they do not have the moral right or legal right to refuse to honour it.
A united and strong European military that shares intelligence, resources and consistently trains together is something that theoretically should be popular on both sides of the political spectrum. This is a positive step toward the EU securing its future as a major wold superpower. A larger, more unified Europe is more resilient toward foreign threats and pressure from the likes of China and the US and more capable of realising its own interests.
No thanks. NATO is proving to be impotent as it is with countries failing to meet targets for defence spending. And is now looking more fractured by the day in terms of its views on Ukraine.
Not being European, my opinion has all the weight of hot air, but I really don't think a European army is a good idea. However... A European gendarmerie, which would be something able to provide temporary defense to give national armies time to respond, but not having offensive capability, might be a very good idea.
The EU values unanimity very highly. An army needs one and only one person in command. I find it hard to imagine France turning over 100,000 soldiers to a German general to use as cannon fodder. I suppose the EU army would have 27 commanders-in-chief who have to agree unanimously on every strategic decision. (Perhaps that would lead to world peace?)
Too many people here are commenting as if an EU Military would replace individual EU militaries within each member state, but wouldn’t a EU military be an additional instrument and institution to work alongside every EU state’s own domestic air force, navy etc. The command structure would just be different and the pan EU ministry of defence or equivalent would work with the ministry of defence with each member state of the EU…
Few things unite people faster than the fear of a common enemy.
A ko je to zajednički neprijatelj???
A rule of thumb i like "there's no such thing as an ally but only common interests"
When the common interests go, things start to fall apart until a new one comes around
@@duskokukolj5571Rusija. Nije ni Ukrajina mislila da ce ih Rusija zapravo napast. Bolje oprez nego zalit.
And then we'll discover that Putin was a double agent for the EU intelligence all along, as he joined them right after the fall of the USSR. After all, didn't Putin work in east Germany during his KGB days?
Well a perceived enemy. Like it's quite obvious that our common enemies are our current leaders who brought us here and yet they still are our leaders
The Nato spending graph is extremely out of date, so you should at least add the date for context
@seandowney6216 Well go on explain.
You don't think this channel is pure propaganda? Lmao, you naive little soul @@chimonellimon
Idk what you're talking about. We (Slovakia) have the above 2% military budget for the first time since our existence this year - and that's exactly what the graph is showing.
@@rezolutionist7715it's up to date on some countries and not so up to date on others then. for example germanys budget also hit 2.1% of GDP this year, which has been known for a while now. While "extremely" might have been a bit much, the point in general stands: its not up to date, so it should be dated
@@chimonellimon he won't, because he's a troll who doesn't even know what propaganda looks like even if you show cold war examples.
I don’t know why the EU expects the USA to protect them, strategically US EU relations are mutually beneficial but we need to be able to deter Russia by ourselves
but you all warmongering 1d10t5 keep saying russia won't win, so what's the need for all this? Are you saying russia is so strong and powerfull, that the entire european continent (except russia) must unite to face russia?
@@johndoe2-ns6tf "defending yourself against russian aggression is warmongering"
@@rod9829 what aggression? did russia attacked your country or any other EU country?
@@johndoe2-ns6tf it attacked two European countries, Georgia and Ukraine
absolutely 0 benefit to be allied with the US it has caused europe more harm being pulled into the US wars than all the last internal conflicts of the last 80 years.....
A 27 nation army couldn't hold me back?
Haha that's a clever one!
me: A Slovak citizen
Me seeing this clip: 4:50
My head: Wait... we have a tank? Like I know we have but I had no idea that some are actualy functional
Funny how the EU has near exact same territory has Germany had in 1943 + They are sending tanks against the russian's .... again. And ruled by a NON ELECTED gov in Brussel.
Incredible how nobody makes the parallels and wake the f up.
History trully repeat itself over and over again faking being something different.
Bro there are so many in Trebišov and Michalovce. And that is an old soviet BVP not a tank
Poland out there with Nearly 4% GDP going towards there Defence but Germany Italy and France ca barley scrap together 2% while having much larger economies is hilarious. Goes to show who really takes defence seriously.
No it shows you whos lead is a suicide squad and whos not
@@99StrX Germans realise money is the most important thing in life
Poland shares border with Russia and Belarus, Germany and France don´t. Of course Poland would invest more into their military/defence force.
Speaking as an American, YES!! PLEASE!!! Your defense shouldn't be our job.
America kind of makes it their job by spending more on military than the top ten other countries combined.
Russian containment is your policy and follows your strategic interests. That's why your army is there, not because you are good samaritans. Europe's interest is to have cheap energy to keep its industry going.
Oh btw, Putin wants Alaska back. By that I mean... Russia is not only Europe's problem.
@@St0rrrmWe are going to join Russia.
@@St0rrrm Who ever said we were good Samaritans? We're just living in the past.
6:00 Hard to believe but Orban is actually pro EU-army. He said this in 2022 after Russian invaded Ukraine:
There is no European army, even though it is needed! There is no common defense policy, force development is uncoordinated.
- listed Orbán, and then to the legitimate reporter's question about how the common defense policy can be reconciled with the needs of strong nation states, the Hungarian Prime Minister shared perhaps the most important thoughts of the interview:
It is a mistake to treat the issue of European federalism as a black and white problem. There are areas that are better handled by nation states. However, there are also those in which we can only maintain our importance if we think in terms of a united Europe. One of these is the issue of defense policy. The states of continental Europe must work together to jointly achieve and defend our successes.
I was looking for this comment.
he is authoaritarian and a dictator... he would love nothing more than increasing totalitarianism in Europe. EU army will eventually be used against countries that doesn't fall in line with EU's policies.
It's more of a tribalistic problem. Orban is an "enemy" of the modern progressives cult, so everything he say and does is automatically assumed "bad".
People forget that Orban is pro-Orban, he would happily throw Putin under the bus if it suited his interest. He has mostly been like Erdogan, playing both sides to his advantage.
Isn't he the next EU president?
I'm a Eastern European who has lived in UK for a long time, I also served in the militray back home (within EU) and honestly I have always been for EU army. I don't care what globalism fears people have. Europe must be united. Even back in my military days, EU army was all about fast response units to promote efficiency and defensive capabilities between EU borders. We are a contintent full of countries that share defense interest. People that are anti EU and anti EU synergy in our military potentials are not looking out for the best interest of us Europeans.
I am so happy to finally see a fellow Eastern European support such an endeavour. Especially home there seem to be a lot of anti - EU retorique, not only among politicians and Russian propaganda, but also among a lot of common citizens. And I know the EU isn't perfect and sometimes they do make really shit decisions, but we as a whole are Europeans and must look out for our own common European interests. Not be subservient to Russia or the USA, or anyone else for that matter. Sadly things really don't seem to change for the better...
If you love the EU so much why stay in UK ?? !
Maybe you should leave the UK of you think “anti EU people are not looking out for the best interests of Europeans”
@@2msvalkyrie529 UK is my home and I came here when It was in the EU. What a silly question.
@@rosshilton Maybe you should pull your ass out of your ass and remember that Britain is a free country where people are allowed to express views and that doesn't make them any less pariotic.
Its truly a blessing to live as a european in times when almost the entire continent is working together and not against each other. No matter if army is created or not, we got eachothers backs eurobros
is this a farce ? Most of our capitals are living in permanent unrest, we've illegals pouring in from the south and our politicians seem totally fine with it.
Love my european brothers and sisters ❤ we are autistic together ❤
@@masterblaster848 if that's true then it still doesn't change anything Rozkaz said, you are just a bot/troll
@@masterblaster848serbian bot how cute 😂
@@TheOmegaXicor and you are just another NPC, blindly following the will of politicians, globalists and banksters. You are so brave. YOU F M0R0N.
The threats to Europe come from within.
Like the 5 million Turks in Germany?
@@georgedevries3992 Absolutely
jihadist
So they need a Grand Army of the Republic to fight Count Putin? Sounds like a great idea… 😂😂😂
Woulda been nice if the EU did this on their own instead of needing Trump to threaten them.
You also missed out that Ireland and Austria are committed to neutrality.
It is about time..
We in Europe lived for years in our pink cloud believing that wars are over, that the Americans will protect us in a time of need, that all security problems can be solved through dialogue etc etc
A European Army for the protection of the EU member states is a MUST,
i'm sorry for our unreliability. It concerns a lot of us here in the states too.
@@ExarchGamingWhat about Europes unreliability for decades? We should be partners but right now it is all one sided so don’t apologize for me and millions of others who have had enough of protecting the world when most don’t want us or feel entitled to our taxpayer money for their own benefit.
@@GDM-f4iExactly. Europeans have always hated Americans because Americans aren't "white enough", anyway...
Europeans themselves don’t even enlist for their own army. They are busy sucking up your welfare/social programs. How can you have an army in the first place?
@@GDM-f4iLmao the US government wasn’t doing it out of the kindness of their hearts
At 2:17 you highlight Slovenia when you mention the formerly eastern bloc countries. Slovenia which was at that time part of Yugoslavia was during cold war a non-aligned nation!
Once again, Farage was right.
🤣
EU becoming a federation is because of Putin and his 5D chess move lmao
EUSSR was planned long before you were even born. Good luck serving your tyrannical corrupt communist overlords.
It actually is... If his goal is to destroy democracy. There is no better way than centralize EU into federation.
You go right ahead and think that.
@@combatepistemologist8382 i mean the chance are almost zero but it would be really funny if they really do that, and do you think Putin decision to outright invading Ukraine is a wise one?
It is, since it would collapse just like the soviet union did and for the same reasons.
An EU army would most likely be used against their own citizens rather than imaginary enemy. That would crush dissent & protests & allow the unelected EU Govt to rule unhindered.
An army led by who ? Technocrats in Bruxelles that no one elected ?
France for sure. Or maybe Germany but that seems less certain to me.
@@aliceg6745 does France control the european bureaucracy right now ? Why would France control the European Army ?
And why would the other members accept that ?
It makes no sense
@@Chrysobubulle "Why would France control the European Army" ? Because it is the most powerful and strongest army in the EU and the only army with the nuclear power. It is a fact. So it seems logical to me that it is France which leads this army.
If there is an economic union, it would seem logical to me that Germany would lead it, for example. For what ? Because Germany is the largest economy in the EU. It's all a question of logic.
rusky have no voide in this topic!
@@aliceg6745 Yeah, count me out. I'd rather join Russia, at least they don't want to flood my nation with millions of non-whites and call it progress.
Trump : hey, you need to start paying your responsibilities like we all agreed to!
Europe : no
Trump: fine then we won’t protect you.
Europe : we will show that evil orange man quickly increase the military budget!
EU: Repeatedly collectively spends 3x Russias defense spend. Has 1.4m active personnel. Over 3 million reservists.
Conscription in many countries. Is nuclear armed. Agreed common defense policy. Joint procurement program. Air and sea supremacy. Control of Aegean, Mediterranean, Baltic seas. 300 million population advantage. 10x Russias economy. Consistently beats Russia in practically every stat.
Russia: How do I get past Avdiivka.
Americans: We're protecting you.
LOL loved it ♥
Funny how the EU has near exact same territory has Germany had in 1943 + They are sending tanks against the russian's .... again. And ruled by a NON ELECTED gov in Brussel. Hummmmmm......
Incredible how nobody makes the parallels and wake the f up.
History truly repeat itself over and over again faking being something different. Different names as cover up, but same actions, same intentions.
I have the feeling you know as much about this as Trump does.
@@johnnykotletti4614 Stop the compliments, being compared with Trump, is like being compared with the person you admire the most. You're way to kind for your good.
@@ThereIsAlwaysaWay2 You hopefully realise that i wasn't talking to you ? Anyway, i also can see much of Trump in you.
Its tragic comical how people seriously discussing about a defense line to the east while we get overrun from africa and the middle east.
Remember when the remain parties were constantly stating this wouldn't happen? 🤔
Like most conspiracy theories it only takes a few years to become not only true but a good thing! Thank god we left.
@@TommyTipex "thank god we left" meanwhile the UK is coming apart at the seems, is poorer, and will likely balkanize in our lifetimes.
And your still taking in immigrants, and will still go to America or the mainland for your defense xp.
Brexit did literally nothing good for you, "thank god".
@@unyieldingsarcasm2505 Our ruling class had to punish the plebs for daring to defy them of course ergo the immigration and tanked economy.
Dream on about 'balkanisation' as well, scotland don't have the bollocks to leave and everyone else is happy to be in the UK.
As for defence I'm not massively worried about Russia's attack from St. Petersburg sailing past 10+ countries to strike or invade us lmao.
What we did get out of it, is staying a sovereign nation, not a province of the EU run by people no one voted for, we'll see how long you can say the same.
Funny how the EU has near exact same territory has Germany had in 1943 + They are sending tanks against the russian's .... again. And ruled by a NON ELECTED gov in Brussel.
Incredible how nobody makes the parallels and wake the f up.
History truly repeat itself over and over again faking being something different. Different names as cover up, but same actions, same intentions.
@@unyieldingsarcasm2505 support for independence in Scotland is unchanged by Brexit. I know, I'm Scottish.
As an italian I am with this, time to stand as one and fight for our interests, time for Europe to become what it is predestined to be: a superpower
A huge unelected bureaucracy in charge of just about everything. Don’t see any problems? Keep it local/national.
BS. You‘re always stronger together than alone. The EU is a major player in the world because not every single country does its own little politics.
@@timha4102 "You‘re always stronger together than alone." - Yeah, that's the whole point of politcal corruption.
@@Klongu_Da_Bongu So following your logic there would be less corruption in non EU countries like, for example, Albania or Venezuela.
@102Pure "Whataboutism" hahaha. Good to know I won if you have to invent my arguement for me, so you can defeat it easier.
@@Klongu_Da_Bongu You might win if you explain how corruption in the EU would be different from corruption in non EU countries.
2:20 Cyprus was part of the Eastern Bloc now? Another one for the editorial.
Suddenly, Europe is willing to invest in its own defense. Who knew it only required the credible US threat to walk away.
If Trump win US will become a fascist state. Save yourself and us.
Oh we have one of these, it’s called NATO..
NATO includes the UK though, and the EU hates the UK.
The problem with NATO is that all members including US, Turkey and Hungry have to accept the decisions. Guess what, they don't have the same interests than Europe.
*As an American, I'm glad for EU but also your taxes are going to go through the roof. Good luck!*
There is no reason why we just couldn’t make a new inner european coalition of willing and able countries to form a common security policy, synchronizing their defense industry, streamlining procurement processes and ultimately forming unified command structures for a common army.
We don’t need the likes of Hungary to mess with the process.
Good idea 💡Majority rules. No electoral college. No GOP idiots! 😁
So what happens to military spending on the national and NATO level if we are going to spend on the EU military? Money doesn’t come out of thin air! The GDP for welfare and social programs will be slashed and reallocated accordingly, unless you withdraw NATO.
An EU Army would not change NATO spending, it would just make spending here more efficiently as the joint procurement and development makes weapons cheaper. We could buy more stuff with the same money we spend due to the NATO framework on ourselves, of course the target would be for Europe to spend 2%, not single nations anymore.
Would enhance NATO, make arms more cheaper and more effective
You should have a look at what the NATO rly is. There is no military spending on NATO level.
@@johnnykotletti4614Sure there are a lot of NATO expenses and Europe pay around 84% of them. Do you think that training, exercises, logistics and uperr management are for free?
Actually The way I see it NATO is almost the European Army, it just a matter of politely ask the US, Turkey and Hungary to leave. If they have different interests, why should Europe care with them? Remember, the only country that claim the article 5 was the US after 9/11, and all members joint them in the war.
They should do this. I’m sick of my tax dollars going to defend other countries. It’s not the US job to defend Europe. The US should fully pull out and let the Europeans fully defend themselves.
I don't even see Hungary as the biggest obstacle here, but rather Austria, because of our State Treaty and our obligation for perpetual neutrality from any military block. That thing is a holy cow in Austria's political circles, as well as the general populace.
So in my opinion if an EU army would ever be created, it would be probably without any Austrian participation, I am afraid. Many people in Austria have become too comfortable with our neutral status. To many it seems as if they could raise our state treaty into the air, yell 'Neutrality!' three times and errect a magical protective shield over our country.
The neutrality article might have helped Austria in the 50s and 60s, but formerly secret documents revealed after the 2000s, showed the USSR had nuclear missiles in Hungary (not even the Communist leadership of Hungary itself was aware of them), aimed at Vienna and other major cities as far West as Salzburg. Vienna itself was meant to be taken out preemptively by two 500 KT strong thermonuclear missiles. The warning time would have been probably just something in the range of two minutes or less.
So in retrospect, it showed our neutrality was just a fig-leave for our own mental state: telling ourselves all will be good and nobody will come after us, should the worst ever come to pass. Nobody wanted to face reality and do what was necesary, like what Finland or Switzerland was doing with bunker projects or mentally and economically prerparing the populace for the possibility. Instead politicians could take large amounts of money to please the people to elect them. Thank you very much, Kreisky.
There is something chilling about hearing some one argue for a european empire in a german accent
Not German, French. 😊
If you don't mind, what tools do you use for editing the maps? Thanks
It's not just increasingly likely, it's necessary. It's not a question of pride, it's not a question of ideology, it's not a question of toughness.
It's a question of survival.
And thus the European 🇪🇺 Empire is born.
Yeah it went SO well last time Europe had mass miltarization...
But I thought it was just about trade?! 😮
Funny how the EU has near exact same territory has Germany had in 1943 + They are sending tanks against the russian's .... again. And ruled by a NON ELECTED gov in Brussel.
Incredible how nobody makes the parallels and wake the f up.
History truly repeat itself over and over again faking being something different. Different names as cover up, but same actions, same intentions.
Great! Just what we need: more taxes🎉. Can't buy a house, can't buy a car. Only thing we have is working and sleeping. Revolution is a thing of the past so we just gotta bend over n take it
Just an idea...
Why not just require NATO membership for all EU countries?
You could phase it in for existing EU countries not already in NATO but require for any new members.
Thing is it kind of feels like doing something as NATO requires the us to be on board with it.
If they were to turn their back on us, we'd be left with a frozen NATO that could not provide leadership for eu countries.
good idea
France ran out of ammo just in the Libyan operation.
Really?
LOL sure it did bot.
@@grabediggerIt's officially recognized by the Elise (French Gov) as a fact. Was in the papers back then, where you sleeping under a rock of you have a 5 second memory span.
The EU becomes more authoritarian, very concerning
Another win for Brexit... remember when we were promised there was no chance of this happening?
Oh I do haha, us silly brexiteers and our wild conspiracy theories eh
@TommyTipex Most of the people that comment on this channel will have conveniently forgotten that though I assure you
"When the facts change, I change my mind!" Something brexiters are incapable of even in the face of them destroying the UK. Then again, their leaders where always in biz with Putin!
what I want answered is simple; Who can block such an Eu army deployment. who has final say on where an EU army base can be built.. Just for an example; could the EU order an EU army base built in French overseas territories in the pacific Oceans, even if French politicians and local islanders was against it, but a majority of the EU wanted such a base built.
Before this plan can put in motion, top European leader has to make sure every member in the org. must pay up each due diligently and timely. Having one EU army to command is a costly proposition without a superpower at the side to take up the slack routinely left by defaulter. Talk is cheap, propose is easy, but walk the talk is much harder. 🥴🥴
Unpopular opinion: I hope for Trump to win, so Europe is forced to unite
I’m probably going to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I feel like this is the endgoal for the US. A strong EU with its own army aligned with the US beats a weak EU that needs the US to defend itself.
I mean he would actually disunite us thankfully. Prepare for Exits galore 2016 style. Freedom to the people here on the continent!
He's right, but it's his delivery that's all wrong, but he's going to backstab ukraine if he wins since it doesn't affect him,only financially, and trump loves money.
YES
And dreams can come true, if there's a will
Hopefully not!
said the zigger, shut up bot
EU army gets created.
Hungary vetoes it being deployed anywhere.
An EU army is long overdue
Didn't the brexit people argue that this was a strong liklihood?
Yes and I were called as paranoid for stating. Pro-brexit people could see the future. EU-army will be end of our liberties.
@@Tespri You can't take away ze liberties if you simply change ze definition of liberty... Sorry, got possessed by Klaus there for a second.
I'm so glad for Brexit, being forced into a European army sounds outright dystopian.
But NATO isn’t? 🤔
Go count your roubles, Sergei.
You probably don't realize how many wars we fought between ourselves. The EU, besides needing strong reforms, has been an absolute blessing for the peaceful life we enjoyed since after WW2
@@Nils.Minimalistwhy do you spam?
I still hope my country will leave the EU like you guys one day
Didn't know Norway was ever part of the eu at the biginning of the video lol
So Nigel Farage's warnings were correct.
He didn't predict Russia invading Ukraine though. He also said years ago that the EU would fall apart.
@@phil2544 Without Russian gas it will. Germany is in recession, deindustrialising and it is Germany that funds the EU.
Nah. It was a baseless conspiracy theory back then. Nobody at the time was considering any such thing. They're considering it _now_ because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Farage, who was quite cushy with the Russian right, certainly didn't see that one coming.
The map shows norway as a part of EU, this is not the case.
It's a bit late now. With the amount of illegal immigrants in Europe now and the numbers that keep on arriving
They will be the ones drafted into the army, less qualms about supressing the european people's rights you see.
In the past I thought EU army is a bad idea and was against it. After all we had NATO and national armies. But after 2022 I also agree that maybe there should be one. Not to mention even if all nations pool money together (that they spend nowadays) they could get better prices from bulk purchases.
Europe has already army, need just to get common command, who command all member states armies
I´m tired of Russia´s threaths from the East and MAGA´s blackmail from the West. It´s time for the EU to become a strong independent military force, and it needs to happen extremely fast.
The EU should establish the EF (European Federation) just like in Tom Clancy's EndWar thus forming it's own military, economy and political power easily capable in surpassing even the MAGA US and Russia.
@@DarkZerol We in ze WEF (world economic forum) would like to help you formulate your idea. You sound like a brave new leader. Europe needs people like you, freund. We need you.
The European Union when are you going to end homelessness within the EU there are too many people sleeping living on the streets in poverty please do something
If you look out your window you can see them
I can remember Nick Clegg telling us that a EU army would never happen but off course we do have an army that is established and fully functional......Its called NATO, it has worked for decades and I see no need to fix something that works.
Nato is not an army. And the only reason Nato works is because of US participation. Without the US, the combined efforts of the national armies of Europe probably won't be able to provide that overwhelming power needed to be able to swiftly end any conflict that might appear on Europe's eastern front. An EU army can do that.
And with regards to what was said by remainers during the Brexit years, times change. There were no plans for that back then because an EU army didn't seem necessary. It does seem necessary now.
But we do have the USA and they are indeed the backbone of the defence. But NATO has kept the peace among its members and that is a fact. Europe however must do more and spend more to at least get to 2%... The EU does not spend enough now and given past experience they would spend even less in the future. The EU is all talk they cannot organise anything effectively ....OMG defence in their hands....you have to be joking.
@@Boomerrage32
NATO isn't an army. It's a defensive alliance of independent countries, each with their own army under its own command.
Wow, sounds alot like what the Austrian Painter attempted to do.......against the same enemy.
It'll unlikely happen. Already today Scholz and Macron are having very different approaches when it comes to Russia. Imagine having the agreement of another 25 leaders...
Nonsense. Clegg told us it was a fantasy.
How would they manage logistics and resupply for a EU army? Such a hodgepodge of different weapons systems would be impractical.
EU army wouldn't be formed out of existing armies, it would be built from scratch. They would buy brand new weapons and weapon systems to supply the army.
@@Laerei How typical. Do you have any idea how expensive military equipment is?
@@salted6422 it is expensive! But we are not a collection of third world countries. Why not make your own weapons? Our economy would grow and new jobs would be created.
It's not like we don't have any arms industry. New ones would have to be built across Europe
What? That's the least of the problems. You do realize that NATO countries (which most of the europe is in) uses standardized equipment?
the equipment is suprisingly the easiest thing. You can standardise equipment just look at the NATO calibers,
7.62x51mm 5.56x45mm 12.7mm 105mm, 120mm and 155mm are everywhere.
I'm all for an EU army
Good that UK isn’t making any of these decisions.
Personally, I believe this fractionalized military would probably be counter-productive. Whether we like it or not, European people/countries/ideals still vastly differ from one another. Heterogeinity is not a good thing when it comes to your military, and I just cant imagine there wouldnt be any tensions related to what nationalities end up higher on the hierarchical ladder. If the day truly comes where all of Europe is threatened by an external power, there would be very high levels of cooperation anyway, only without the tensions of having all of those personnel under the same command.
As an American I have to say W Europe you guys are finally paying for your militaries.
I think the main arguement is very simple.
Russia has switched their economy to that of a wartime economy that works and thrives during long wars with heavy casualties.
The EU nations respective armies have been focused on specialized small scale operations. In a long drawn out war with high attrition we are woefully unprepared.
the thumbnail… haha, helmet head ursula von der lying!! lmao
It would be so ironic if this army used English as a standard language because of both Brexit and lower american involvement
Eu needs to have a European army with Russia.
Europe needs to look after it's own defense and stop expecting me the US taxpayer subsidize their defense. The same applies to the other rich countries like Japan and South Korea that the US has security guarantees with.
I see USA now like a little child. For years and years: You don't need to have a big army, we will protect you. You don't need nukes, we have them for you. Now, when times at rough: why you do not protect yourself? We are sick of protecting you! Now take the case of my country, Romania: no US soldier ever fought for Romania but romanian soldiers fought and died for US in Afghanistan and Irak. We had a nuclear program in the '80s which US and URSS desperately fought to stop. Now you ask us why do we have to rely on your nuclear system to deter russia? Do you really want 27 countries in Europe to start Nuclear programs? Grow up man!
@@ciprian2106 No offense but you Romanians really need to look inwards for your problems lol. No amount of rationalizations will erase your past... President.
@@Klongu_Da_Bongu
I think is very difficult for you to understand our history so maybe is better to not discuss about it. Also I think is difficult for you to understand your history and that's why you don't understand why Europe is in this situation with not very developed armies and no nuclear programs. Our past president was a direct consequence of us being trapped between the Europe's psychopat - russia and Europe's autist - Germany.
@@ciprian2106 Yeah, everyone is to blame but you? That classic balkan ethnonationalism.
@@Klongu_Da_Bongu
You know nothing about Balkans, so stop fooling around. What country are you from?
An army of armies. As an european, i hope to see it one day.
United States of Europe when?
When France and Germany finally finish their centuries long rivalry over who is the dominant power in Europe.
I don't think Germany competes with France. At least not militarily. Even we Germans say our army is... inadequately equipped😅
@@Lysandra-8 but you have in the past, and Germany is a leading nation in the EU. Becoming the dominant power in Europe dose not necessarily need to be by force, but it does require one or the other to be subservient to the other.
@@edwxx20001 in the past we did a lot of stupid things, but I'm sure we are smarter now. Germany is economically strong, but we don't seek to dominate militarily.
When the World Economic Forum has enough soft power to make "Managed democracy"... For our own good, of course.
I think the army is largely already there, but also that a European army might not play nice with the specializations that have begun to form between different NATO member's armies. Only France currently has the ability to project military power abroad, for example. While Eastern European nations like Poland are heavily geared towards stopping a Russian invasion and not much else;
You don't really have a common army if in every significant conflict, just a handful of countries will be doing most of the fighting because the rest aren't able to help much.
Also, how would you decide to send in the troops...? Unanimity? If so, I think a European army wouldn't be much of a credible deterrent on the world stage if all it got to do was unambiguous self-defense. It'd be little more than a paper tiger.
As an American that serviced in the military. I honestly am surprised that the EU don’t already have a united Military. It would streamline logistics and help speed up communication in chain of command.
you are surprised? over all those decades, did you not notice anything how much every US administration did to prevent the Europeans from doing something exactly like this? when they didn't do it themselves they made the UK government foil any effort from within the EEC and EU. all this changed with Brexit and Trump.
Love how people in the comments don't see that a EU army will become more of a internal security service rather than a external force.
This will result in a much more given power to the EU body to deal with member countries.
As a citizen of the Czech Republic, I will boycott the creation and functioning of the common army as much as I can. That's for sure. The EU is not a state. He has no public support for such ideas and therefore has no right to arise.
So how will a genuine 'EU Army' be deployed? Austria and the ROI are 'neutral' so won't contribute, yet such things in the EU require unanimity in votes. This would mean countries with no skin in the game could decide whether other countries' men go and fight - no accountability, not a good thing.
Funny how the EU has near exact same territory has Germany had in 1943 + They are sending tanks against the russian's .... again. And ruled by a NON ELECTED gov in Brussel.
Incredible how nobody makes the parallels and wake the f up.
History truly repeat itself over and over again faking being something different. Different names as cover up, but same actions, same intentions.
I think this is the wrong approach. No country will give up their army fully leaving themselves "defenseless". The only reasonable option is having a part of each country come together under the European flag to defend EU interests, essentially somewhat like NATO stationing troops on its eastern flank, although under national flags. On top of that, things like a European Aircraft carrier or European Nuclear deterrence are, I think, a rather reasonable thought.
But at the end of the day, we probably wont have European defense projects with 27 partners. We are already struggling with FCAS because everyone wants the biggest part of the production in their country. We could not reliably give everyone a share of the production, like having Spain build a chassis and Latvia drilling in a few bolts. And while smaller nations do end up just buying US and European defense projects anyway I suspect they would make out a chance to get a pie of the collective defense budget by demanding some production be in their country. So for FCAS, MGCS and other major defense projects I dont think there will be full EU cooperation, it will rather stay like it is, with projects between France and Germany mainly, with Italy and Spain in the mix. But I would love it if we could stand together and developt weapons collectively.
Maybe we have to rethink it tho, have an EU military that really just focuses on defense, learning the ins and outs of specifically EU territory, building up a nuclear arsenal for defense and pooling resources
Budget allocation is a major constraint as other countries' defense budgets are high. To keep up, they should spend a lot, which means less for the welfare of citizens.
Just keep in mind that it was exactly this - the entry of Ukraine into the EU with a common defence pact and the probability of an EU army - that directly led to Russia invading Ukraine….
Ah so now Europe is star wars 😂
So whats our version of order 66 tho
It is one army unofficially. Some countries has more planes. Some has more artillery. Some has more ships. Whole EU army is complete, parts in each country could not defend by themselves. It is just a politics, to officially recognise as a single army.
Seriously
We need a EU army and federalization ASAP
An EU army is incredibly unpopular in countries bordering Russia - they would lose all decisionmaking over their own defense...
An EU Armed Forces is an exceptionally bad idea. Policy alignment is very important, but an actual Armed Forces for the EU is a painfully stupid idea. So epically bad there is way too much to highlight in the comment section. But most notably is just how unnecessary such an Armed Forces is. NATO already provides an effective, and ever growing, defence force, as well as policy alignment for member states. And anyone thinking the US won’t honour the treaty is taking Trump too literally because a POTUS doesn’t have the right or authority to refuse to honour Article 5 of NATO… ironically for Trump and his ignorant supporters, the only time Article 5 has been used was to defend the USA, so they do not have the moral right or legal right to refuse to honour it.
This seems like a really terrible idea for national sovereignty
A united and strong European military that shares intelligence, resources and consistently trains together is something that theoretically should be popular on both sides of the political spectrum.
This is a positive step toward the EU securing its future as a major wold superpower.
A larger, more unified Europe is more resilient toward foreign threats and pressure from the likes of China and the US and more capable of realising its own interests.
No thanks. NATO is proving to be impotent as it is with countries failing to meet targets for defence spending. And is now looking more fractured by the day in terms of its views on Ukraine.
Not being European, my opinion has all the weight of hot air, but I really don't think a European army is a good idea. However... A European gendarmerie, which would be something able to provide temporary defense to give national armies time to respond, but not having offensive capability, might be a very good idea.
And quell rebellions from peasan... I mean, farmers...
@@Klongu_Da_Bongu your comment makes it seem like you don't understand they can do that already. Are you really that stupid, or just trolling?
The EU values unanimity very highly. An army needs one and only one person in command. I find it hard to imagine France turning over 100,000 soldiers to a German general to use as cannon fodder. I suppose the EU army would have 27 commanders-in-chief who have to agree unanimously on every strategic decision. (Perhaps that would lead to world peace?)
Waste of money on logistical side
The enemy of the people is located in Brussels and not Moscow.
Well, maybe that’s what should happen, United States of Europe, with an Army, Navy & Airforce that will match USA
Too many people here are commenting as if an EU Military would replace individual EU militaries within each member state, but wouldn’t a EU military be an additional instrument and institution to work alongside every EU state’s own domestic air force, navy etc. The command structure would just be different and the pan EU ministry of defence or equivalent would work with the ministry of defence with each member state of the EU…
That thumbnail is so over the top and dramatic that it lowers my respect
Its too late now. The time period for that thing was a decade ago.