Should the EU Form Its Own Army?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 мар 2024
- Sign up for a 7-day free trial and enjoy all the amazing features Guardio has to offer. guard.io/eusimple
We look at 4 Tiers of possible defense integration: from establishing a EU foreign policy as the foundation to the ambitious goal of forming a full-fledged EU army. An EU Defense Union is gaining momentum and sparking discussions across the globe. But what does it mean? The pressing question we face is the depth of integration necessary to assert European sovereignty on the global stage, especially against superpowers such as the US, China, and Russia. In today's geopolitical climate, where the notion of national sovereignty faces challenges, a certain degree of integration seems imperative to safeguard European interests and autonomy.
We delve into the perspectives of influential European leaders like Ursula von der Leyen, Emmanuel Macron, Donald Tusk, and Olaf Scholz, exploring their global aspirations and how they shape the EU's defense strategy. The video also highlights the divergent visions of key EU member states-Germany, France, and Poland-each proposing unique paths toward achieving a more secure and unified Europe. This exploration not only sheds light on the complexities of EU defense integration but also underscores the critical need for a unified approach in navigating the intricate landscape of international relations and security.
Support the Channel:
💁♂️ Patreon: / eumadesimple
☕ Buy me a Coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/EUMadeSi...
📷 RUclips: / theeumadesimple
Sources:
www.statista.com/chart/14636/...
ruclips.net/user/liveWcMHCz75...
eupinions.eu/de/text/the-war-...
www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/e...
www.dw.com/en/germany-vows-to...
www.france24.com/en/europe/20...
• Trump says he’d let Ru...
www.politico.eu/article/russi... significant%20price%20in%20 Russian%20 military%20production.&text=Russia%20is%20gearing%20up%20for,in%20a%20report%20published%20Tuesday.
www.euronews.com/2024/02/09/p...
europeanconservative.com/arti...
• "Alle für einen, einer...
• EU #security and #defe...
• The future of European...
Sign up for a 7-day free trial and enjoy all the amazing features Guardio has to offer. guard.io/eusimple
In your Video about the proposals on the amendment of the EU you mentioned the council meeting is likely scheduled for March. Are there any new informations?
I dont get why you frame Trump as an enemy of Europe, when he’s simply asking Europe to pull its weight, to pay the amount that was agreed upon when entering NATO. How’s that a bad thing?
European army -yes
EU army-hell no
Ah yes, Trump. A man who famously pays his bills…
Just a few days ago Trump claimed he was a billionaire, then said he can't pay his 450 million dollar fine for (a few) of his 91 felonies. Lol.
He's right in this case, though. Europe has been famous for spending lavishly on social benefits and infrastructure while the US foots the bill for defense of the continent. Then Europeans spit in the face of Americans, calling us warmongers and uneducated and insulting our systems. You don't get to do that and expect us to continue paying for your security.
Trump is more suited for staging fake wrestiling and mudpit fighting.
@@draum8103That's because nobody has his entire fortune in cash. Most billioners have most of their fortunes in stocks, bonds, real estate properties, shares of various companies etc.
@@draum8103 tbf that is incredibly hard to find the liquidity for.
I'm from Hungary and I fully support a United States of Europe, and a Tier 4 European Army
Right on bruh
Hell no
I'm from Ukraine and I love you
If you want that to happend, your country needs a new prime minister. Your prime minister is going to block every advancement in that direction.
Change your gouvernement
Tier 4, with a qualified majority as my favourite
Tier 4 is extremely dangerous for the European population. I dont trust the European Parlament even tho Im pro EU.
Why shouldnt such an European Army be used internally as a police force or the next time a member state tries to leave?
100% agreed, from Hungary.
Such a thing cannot happen in defence. Would a country who voted against a war send its citizens to fight in it? This is why nato works the way it does.
@@kingdedede1066 There is a single European citizenship alongside national citizenship.
@@falsevacuum4667 you would need a federation before this level of integration could be considered, and then there would be no point in a qualified majority anyway
In my opinion, it is important to understand the difference between European defense and European army (the two are often confused).
The European army is something difficult to implement, since it will take many decades to get all the nations to agree, while the common defense is conceptually simpler since it allows each nation to preserve its own armed forces.
The risk that NATO will fail, although minimal, is not negligible and it is good that Europeans are ready for this eventuality, which is why I consider European defense to be something of a very high priority.
I think that a good defense of the European Union is a firm step towards the right goal the establishment of the 4th pillar common defense. And also a fail safe for NATO and the USA.
Yes yes it is a national prerogative but it would be fair for all EU states to have the same wages in military and same training and be good and greatly coordinated.
In the end they are all defending the same thing: our lives, lifestyles and freedoms. Same goal.
You guys know that the United States President doesn't have the authority to "pull out," that can only be done by Congress. Also, Trump is an ass and his own base is turning on him. Many people that voted for him the first time, because he was a wildcard, now hate him. It is also not like we will throw away everything we have done and sacrificed to build this alliance up. Hell, if Europe would just go all in and fight against Russia (or until an American dies)...you'll all find out why we don't have "free" social services. Trust me, after seeing Russia get it's ass handed to them by a country that is smaller than a few of my states by woefully untrained resistance fighters...this will be easier than destroying the Iraqi army. I fear you guys just don't have the stomach to do what must be done. I swear to God...if USA has to do another Normandy landing because you guys failed to act...how about all USA debts we owe to any of you will be forgiven?
Thank you! It's so annoying hear in the word European army used interchangeably with European defence
Fully agree with everything, wishes from Lithuania🇱🇹🇪🇺❤
We need Tier 3 at LEAST.
European Federation is necessary.
Why? Is federation between the US and Canada necessary? I like d the looser co-operation between like minded countries that the EEC represented. The EU is just a power-grabbing monster.
@@paullarne, we need states like US has, we are not talkin about US and Canada.
@@mirceabyd we need states like the USSR has ?
@@SP95 USSR was a dictatorship. Federation of Europe a democracy.
@@Jurjen. Funnily enough, North Korea is also a democracy.
Considering the options we don’t have much a choice anymore. We need a fully integrated European military.
of course we have no choice... we need this asap
@@Elliasp-xx7mbWe do have a choice, but having 27 voices is a massive weakness that others are playing on, we need to streamline the process in getting things done, that likely means removing the veto rule.
If we don't get our act together, we'll likely get pushed aside by the other big powers.
@@paul1979uk2000 of course I agree. I meant : "we have no choice to do this now" ;)
@@Elliasp-xx7mb True, and honestly, the groundwork for this should have been laid well over a decade ago, too much time has been wasted, and honestly, I have to blame Germany, they've been way too slow on all this, they've been too trusting of Russia and part of the blame is on the eastern EU members who are too trusting of the US, but don't get me wrong, they are our allies, but to think they care about us in Europe is laughable at best, sad at worse, they care about self-interest of the US only and it's high time Europeans wake up to that reality and start looking after themselves, and the best way to do that is through the EU, both Trump and Putin are clear indicators that we in Europe need a stronger voice.
@@paul1979uk2000 They all remind me Harry Potter : "No, Voldemor is not here !!! We don't need war !" ;-))
We should be able to respond collectively to threats within the EU, or against EU member-states, without necessarily involving NATO. Because the current system beefs up NATO while leaving gaping holes in non-NATO EU states' defensive capabilities.
No there should be no acting against EU countries, if the government changes in democratic election it's what people want and if they leave EU it's people's will, we should no intervene in others countires in EU
@@Kiiiurself8482 you have misunderstood what I said.
Yes European police force for domestic protection and European army just because we can.
@@atharvaveda87 Europol already exists, there is no need for a centralised EU police force. There is also no political appetite for it.
@@sevatarlives185 europol is a cooperation program not a single centralized police agency
All the way, obviously. No EU country actually needs a separate army. Is Germany afraid of the imminent invasion by Denmark? Is Spain preparing for the French? Of course not, the only army that makes sense in the EU is an EU army. As for EU Battle Groups, there will likely soon be a chance to test them out. Ukraine is too high intensity - high casualty rate would be bad start for an EU Army - but Moldova with its Transinistria problem and Bosnia with Republika Srpska will likely soon go hot and those are ideal environments for EUBGs. Finally, unanimity is one big problem but money is the other big problem. EU Army needs to be funded through EU bonds. There's simply no different way to finance any large rearmament of Europe, skimming few billion here and there from different programs is never going to work.
Denmark?
Calm your goals there buddy.
Luxemburg would take us at this point man
Although I see your point, it’s not just about defending from each other, but national interests. Will France help Spain fend off their issues? Will Hungary approve of specific missions? The smaller the country the less say they have over military issues, making at least for now, a national army necessary.
Thing is most countries (and the people living there) like their own sovereignty and having your own army, that you and only you can control is a big part of that sovereignty.
Also the EU is not as stable as you might think!
Euroscepticism has been on the rise for the past couple of years, populism, nationalism and far right ideologies are also experiencing a surge in a lot of EU countries.
Keeping a national army on top of an Federal Army would be nice if the EU federal project goes tits up. Othervise I am all for Federation of Europe.
I hope Europe will stand with Serpska.
I'm from the US and I support this. EU reliance on the US is strategically disadvantageous and politically difficult to maintain. EU common defense policy is a great idea.
Many Europeans agree with that too but we have the same problem as the US at the moment. Too many stupid people :D
Too many socialists*
Is not a bad thing for the USA.... They can sell weapons (more than 100 billions just in the last 2 years) and get an enormous amount of power by having an entire continent as pseudo vassals who will enforce their sanctions and basically double their power by following all their decisions, what Trump is saying is something you discuss in private not something you say out loud so your enemies can listen..... Also if you don't have your own plans you will be in someone else's plans.... Imagine if the USA choose isolationism with n**I Germany or the Ussr..... Even the USA could have spoken German or became communist by now.
Yeah imagine we would use all this money we spent on seperate armies now for one single one. We could have someting that is similar powerful like your US army. And if this new EU army gets the same NATO membership, we all would profit from that. Less comlpex command, structures less diverse equippment and maybe even a europe that can defend itself 😂 and don't ask you americans for help all the time. 😂😂😂 And we can still be partners and work together in NATO for our defence and our belive in freedom and democracy.
Thank you bro, as soon as we become capable then the world will look different at Europe´s defense capabilities.
Tier 4 asap
European defense is definitely better than continually relying on America.
it is right that Americans and Europeans each take their own path.
With Ireland being neutral it would be difficult to see anything above Tier 1 would even be possible in principle.
@@inbb510Ireland has already suggested they could be OK with increased military cooperation within the EU, but NATO remains a red line.
Continue dreaming, Eastern Europe will continue to rely on the US and UK as long as Italy, France and Germany behave like absolute cowards.
Strong tier 3, though eventually tier 4, but that can only happen in a more federal EU imo, where the EU government is in charge of foreign policy and doesn't need to negotiate with/among the memberstates.
Thank you for such a detailed material. As a Ukrainian I understand how crucial it is to have a unity in defence questions.
As a Ukrainian too, this idea is really good, considering last news from the USA.
EU-army will not be dependent from the USA and any other nation, military communication and connections between countries will be on the highest level.
Moreover, the only danger for the hypothetical EU-army can be on east front, so Ukraine will make this army much more stronger: the country on the east block, with one of the strongest army in Europe and experience of real war.
But I really hope this our experience will never be needed and this war is the last in Europe
Somebody should ask Macron if France is ready to hand over control of their nukes to the EU.
My guess is it will be like the 20 minimum wage in California and Starbucks is not included. I think France would find a way
Yup thats the part they don't say in their speeches. They want to keep control of their nuclear weapons but they want others to pay for it.
Uhm. They are already bound for nuclear response as a part of nato
I highly doubt that France will use nukes for other nations and risk to become a target itself
Ready? That's basically his plan...
lets harmonise the defence industry first, we can take our time with the actual military units working at a pace that suits populations of Europe. We're not in any immediate danger of an external threat (russia can't deal with 40 million how owuld they deal with 300 million?) besides it's better if he work on improving the economic aspect of military intergration first. have plenty of equipment before having the units.
I don't see that happening. There are too many defence companies with ties to their respective goverments.
@@Micha-qv5uf They will have to spread it out among contributing states to make it effective and palatable to the public. I really can't see any of this investment happening if all our money goes to Germany, Sweeden and Framce. But I suppose that would be still far better than the eastern bloc buying everything from the USA like they currently are.
So far the only true stand out and non swappable weapon from the US has been the patriot launcher because they wont stop taking down planes at the moment (around 18 in the last 21 days). Everything else could be made in house and works fine.
@@Micha-qv5uf That probably won't be that difficult to streamline those defence industries across the EU, the members would in the long run get more bang for their buck when it comes to equipment and arms and it could create a lot of jobs.
The real difficult part will be creating the political institution that does the decision-making on military and foreign policy matters, which it's a given that with an EU military, foreign policy matters will be a lot more streamlined at the EU level, they kinda go hand in hand.
Yes, please, I think a fully unified foreign policy is neither neccesary nor desirable
You are speaking like if we have choice. But we have no choice : we need a strong defense cooperation asap !
We do have a choice, but those choices are narrowing quickly, we have wasted a lot of time over the last decade as it is, are choices are simply, we either go into decline, where we get sidelined, pushed aside by the bigger powers like the US and China, or we can come together and defend our interest, and this isn't just on military matters, it will impact foreign policy matters, the economy and maybe even our social programs, we need a strong voice so we can defend our political, economic and social interest, otherwise in time, we might see those 3 being watered down by pressure from outsiders.
So we do have choices, but going on the political realities of how the world is shaping up, our choices are very limited towards decline or further integration into the EU, maybe a bit of decline is needed to reduce those doubters but that would be unfortunate for Europeans, so I don't see further integration as something desirable, I see it as something that over the long term is going to be needed, China and the US are the ones to contend with today, but there's a rising India and the potential of other blocks around the world forming, these are the realities we in Europe need to wake up to and fast because we've wasted too much time already, which if I were to put the blame on any of the countries, Germany would take a lot of the blame for being too trusting of Russia and not being aggressive enough in pushing to streamline the military process across the EU, the other blame is some of the eastern EU countries that are too trusting of the US, the truth is, the US only cares if they stand to benefit from it, if they don't, they rarely care about anything outside its own boarders, Europeans need to stand up and look after themselves and our best chance of that is through the EU together.
Europe obviously has a choice. That choice is NATO. The UK and USA are far more reliable than the cowards in Berlin and Paris, and if one day, for whatever reason, the US would leave NATO, getting nuclear weapons would be far more worthy than depending on "5000 helmets" Germany and "security guarantees for Putin" France.
Interesting video! Keep it up!
Tier 1 is already hard with Orban in the EU...
Turkey is not a eu member state and they will not be one for a very long time your orban made sure of that
Great video thank you! Go for tier 4! 🚀
Thank you.
The EU has a population of 450 million, not 700 million...
Yeah, I think they mixed up the EU’s pop and the continent’s pop
@@kennethmoses4900 He did not. He clearly spoke of a united European continent of around 700 million people at 8:27
@@mathiaswetekam1253 Yup, but that's kind of dumb to say that as a united europe of 700 million people we can stand strong, because no, were are not a united europe of 700 million but of 450 million people
As of now, we can't include countries like Turkey, Serbia etc into the equation, it's just doesn't make sense, even on the long term
He should have just said we are very powerful as a united europe of 450, which is both true, and good enough, hell ! That's more than the USA's population ! For a more or less equivalent economy
Well made video, I hope we can reach tier 3 at least in the future
Tier4!!!
Tier 4 is extremely dangerous for the European population. I dont trust the European Parlament even tho Im pro EU.
Why shouldnt such an European Army be used internally as a police force or the next time a member state tries to leave?
Tier 4
Tier 3, a separate EU force that supplements national armies would be an excellent addition. Not just for potential war in Europe, but for international operations outside Europe. Tier 4 is a bit much for me personally. We like our conscripted army here in Finland. If we tried to unify all militaries, either all countries need to institute conscription or none should have it. And the latter one is not something I'm in favor of.
And the earlier one is also not one im in favor off, besides tier 4 would force the defence industry of France with its fierce tradition of strategical autonomy to give all of its research and tech to Europe for Free, which Germany and the rest of Europe would love, but its the french tax which is spent into this and the french would not see a big return on investment from it. A european unified army is too federalist for my taste, and i dont want a federation just an union between sovereign countries, we dont NEED be fully unified afterall, only to stick together and make a united front against all threat to Europe
Awesome video!
to be fair. Germany pre full scale invasion was against lethal aid entirely. cause yknow history.
there's been an open discussion on whether we should arm drones.
militarism in Germany is politically dangerous.
so every such step needs to be carefully placed and therefore takes a lot longer.
I don't even think that Trump knows the difference of the 2% GDP defence budget agreement and actual NATO membership fees.
I think we should ramp up. We have the basis in the EU Battle Groups. Let's built on those and make them the sword of the EU!
I am a federalist and from Finland
Trump is right about the EU not meeting defense commitments, and he's not the only US president to complain about it; Obama did as well. Long story short, the EU essentially freeloads on American defense infrastructure and spending. When Russia attacked Ukraine, it wasn't the EU that responded, it was the US and UK. I'm all for a European army because it means the US can reduce its defense spending, and it'll mean your welfare benefits take a hit. A win/win in my book.
Trump is just angry with everyone, if it's not military budgets, it would be something else he would pick on.
@@jeffmorris5802I think you misunderstand, it's not freeloading, it's more that Europeans, especially western ones in the EU don't see Russia as much of a threat to need to spend more.
The irony is that many are seeing the US more as a threat lately, especially with Trump, and I think Trump is the one that focusing minds in Europe more than Putin is doing, but not for the reasons that you think, many Europeans are seeing the US as being too polarised, erratic and unpredictable, it's that what is really making many Europeans to think, so Putin got the ball rolling but the US is adding to that and it's not just Europeans thinking that, many are starting to see that the US isn't what it used to be.
Also, what are you talking about, if you combine EU and its members spending, they put far more money in Ukraine then the US have done, it was close in how much both were giving to Ukraine, but with all the political wrangling going on with the Republicans and Democrats, the EU has been taking the lead, so enough with the freeloading BS.
As for the US, it could reduce its military spending, but it probably won't because of China, in fact, the US might end up spending more as China becomes a bigger threat, there's also the factor of the EU pushing on arms production first, that's probably intentional to build an arms industry, considering the US is already a big arms seller, having the EU being one would very likely be in direct competition with the US on the world market and would likely eat into the sales of arms the US sells around the world, that would put a squeeze on the US budget, meaning either the military budget will shrink or American taxpayers have to dig deeper to fund it, whereas on the EU side, they have everything to play when it comes to arms sales.
Also, welfare benefits are unlikely to take a hit, maybe you don't realise this, but European countries used to spend far more on the military decades ago than they do now and still had an effective welfare system, the US doesn't have much of a welfare system because it chooses not to have one, it's not really a money issue, in fact on average, Americans spend around twice as much as other modern countries and get worse results, the system is the problem not money.
@@jeffmorris5802 dude Ukraine is not in EU and not in NATO but USA has a lot of investments in Ukraine and that is that USA is protecting.
I often think of the 2nd WW from many pow but the 2 things I will tell are these Germany in little time almost knelt Europe if the reds would have lost the Americans would have never help the allies because they wouldn’t have won the war
@@atharvaveda87 The US doesn't have literally anything in Ukraine. Apple is worth 15x Ukraine's entire pre-war GDP.
Ukraine may not be in NATO or the EU, but it is literally on Europe's doorstep. Like, you're RIGHT next to it. The USA, perhaps you were unaware, in on the other side of the damn planet.
As a french tier 4 never depend on the outside, especially for security
Alright, this is the best channel ever to learn those kind of stuff, thx you very much eu made simple
I am all for Eurobonds for the defense industry and my tax payer money being spend on the European continent for arms, but I am not willing to fund defense production on another continent through another European continent.
The strategy is a first good guideline. But Eurobonds should only be used on domestic production, until then pls no eurobonds.
Eurobonds zo er van have the whole of South Europe to become like Greece again?
@@Jurjen. Do you even understand how Eurobonds work? They are common denominated debt, just like during Corona.
@@blackhole3298 Correct. With Greece, Spain, etc, going broke so they're destroying the euro while the northern countries party up.
@@blackhole3298 Yep thats why I prefer and actual EU defence budget.
I think in the short term, there can be a bit of a mix, but I agree with you, overtime, there needs to be rules in place that at least the majority of arms are bought and built in the EU, that would create jobs, an arms industry and would over time be profitable for those jobs in the EU with how many arms is sold around the world.
But we shouldn't shut ourselves off from buying arms from outside the EU, but we should reduce it a lot, but we do need to fill the void in all areas of military equipment so there's less need to buy from outside of the EU, which we already do in some areas but more will need to be done.
Euro bonds wouldn't be such a bad idea, or maybe a reduction in taxes at a national level as they don't have to pay for their own militaries and a direct EU tax, there are many ways of going about it and honestly, I don't know the best approach to go about it, but I think it's time we figure something out.
Lets get to tier 4!
Yes.
Every country doing this individually will never achieve the economies of scale that are necessary.
I think the criticism on Germany in this case isn't justified. Macron is not wrong but he wants too much too fast. Germany isn't sceptic because it disagrees on the idea but because we need to achieve much more European integration before we can make these steps. You're also making the mistake to think that Germany and France can just decide everything because they are the most powerful. The idea of the EU is the exact opposite. It's that small countries and minoritys have the same rights as others. If Germany would push forward like France, people would accuse them of abusing their power. Also good luck on reducing the number of weapon systems. There are simply too many inner EU rivalrys. Even the developement programs for the next few decades are worrying. Germany France and Spain develope a 6th gen combat aircraft while Italy and Sweden develope another one together with the UK. Poland is buying Tanks and Artillery from South Korea now simply because the former Government absolutely hated Germany. The problem is not Governments not being brave enough, it is that most people still think in national dimensions and everybody just wants pieces of the cake for themselves. What we need is not only different policies. We need a European cultural revolution. I don't see that happening any time soon though.
With regards to the parallel different developments and precurements: there's strategic strenght in diversity. There's an extra level of redundancy; a Zero Day, other exploit or other disruption can't cripple a whole fleet of 2 different fighter models (that have some parity)
The added complexity and inefficiency of having to rely?on multiple seperate supply lines might offset strategic value, so let's definitively not start developing a 3rd nextgen fighter.
To finish off with a quote my favourite movie (ghost in the shell 1995):
"No matter how powerful we may be fighting-wise, a system where all the parts react the same way is a system with a fatal flaw. Like individual, like organization overspecialization leads to death."
- Motoko to Togusa, after the latter inquired to why the former added a human without cybernetic andadvanced technological battle enhancement to the SpecOps team
@@jezusbloodie That is correct but overall there are definitely too many weapon systems in Europe. It shouldn't be all the same since, as you said, there's strength in diversity, but at the moment it is definitely too much.
@@Micha-qv5uf Fair, it is a bit (very) much with most material and equipment.
Good stuff! Keep it up. A full scale EU army by 2040!
Generally agreed,
Great
yes, we need a European defense.
European sovereignty with EU politicians playing bad actors like Orban is very difficult.
Its always about self interest instead of the greater picture, especially with a war looming at the continent..
Disregard the members not willing to participate, but at a cost of a fine they have to pay if everyone has to fight for Europe.
Europe needs capable defense development.
It’s a shame the UK left the EU but I am glad they did purely on the basic of this topic. I feel a European army is not a good idea and is something my nation would not agree with if it were still in the European Union of provocative states
Germany is hitting the 2% target this year and will continue to hit it in the years to come.
If the EU can't even handle the problems of today like energy and immigrants from outside the EU then I don't want higher tiers. Fix these problems first and then we can see what happends next
A lot more countries are hitting the 2% GDP this year, the percentages are from last year.
France's nuclear deterrence remains French. I dont know what Macron meant about a "Eu Nuclear defense policy" , even in France it's a big controversy
Well its still the same idea as a few years back, the "EU nuclear defence policy" is primarly led by you guessed it France since its the only country with nukes in Europe (besides Russia for obvious reason) completely autonomous from the US and its nuclear doctrine.
Aka its a way for France to essentially enforce its leadership over Europe by covering it with the french nuclear arsenal instead of the American one, big differance being that unli’e the US who is deemed unpredictable, France is still usually more agressive in its nuclear deterrant policy and obviously more involved in Europe.
Spoiler the rest of Europe dont mind the nuclear coverage, they dont want french leadership however haha
The UK needs to join and we need a tier 4 to make the most united EU in history. With a message from the UK saying leaving was a mistake helping to unify the EU.
if the loathsome EU central institution railroads its member states into a pan-EU military, it'll undermine NATO's European pillar. At which point we British and every other non-EU NATO power should leave forthwith.
Fully integrate. As a conservative Italian member of the EU parliament said, "the EU should not do many things, just a few, important things". Defense should be one of such things.
At least Tier 2 is needed. I would prefer higher Tier but 2 is needed.
Tier 1 can be cleared by declaring that EU-armies are just for defense of EU area, be it territory or assets(consulates etc.) and isnt allowed to go outside of EU.
IF EU army is just defensive then I think most members would support idea but moment when EU army is going to be used in middle-east etc for "peacekeeping" or other invasion stuff it faces serious resistance.
Hell, even here(Finland) that is more pro-EU army will be not happy to be part of aggressive army that might do similar stuff like USAs army in middle-east.
Short answer: yes it should.
EU needs to become the Federation of Europe ASAP
Like Russia ?
@@SP95 Europe is a democracy, Russia a dictatorship.
@@Jurjen. What is a democracy ? Forcing 49% of the population to bow over the interest of 51% of the population ? That isn't far from what the USSR did.
@@SP95 "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" Churchill.
@@SP95with youre logic democracys dont exist
Yes, definitely Tier 4
Tier 4 gets my vote.
Europe rules the waves! (I'm a Ukrainian citizen)
I see in the comments a lot of people saying no country needs an army. You have to understand that leaving the fate of your people in the hands of a supranational entity is far from normal, expected or done before. First the trust must be established, which I feel is still somewhat lacking at the high end of executive branches.
Merci. Intéressant et très utile. Je pense qu’il faut adopter d’urgence un calendrier contraignant pour parvenir à un Tier 3 opérationnel bien avant 2030. Il faudra un peu plus de temps pour le Tier 4; même si le plus vite serait le mieux.
Lets get Tier 1 done first and formost. If that is done I feel the road to tiers 2 and 3 is already paved.
As an american, i think tier 4, because europe needs to be more united because it really is not that significant when small nations talk about stuff, but when united, people will have to listen. Also again if trump is elected well, yeah, let's hope that doesn't ever happen
As European i dont like Tier 4 as much as people say nationalism is outdated and as true as it may be, our countries were sovereigns sometime for over a thousand years straight and a rare few much more than even that, a federation would cut that sovereignty apart, its easyier for pre existing federations to take a look at a European federation and love the idea Germany is born from a federation ofc it would be more tolerant of a bigger one. But like im french as much as we hate Paris we lived under a ideal of centralisation since long prior to the discovery of America, even if de facto it was only fully centralised much later. We may not be strong when divided, but if theres one thing im confident we can do, its that we can outlast the current superpowers and collaborate towards the same goal without uniting under the same banner. Besides we dont NEED to talk equal to equal with the other bigs, we only need to tell them that striking us down is not worth it as it only invites mutual destruction, or as the french doctrine would say "dissuasion from the weak to the strong"
If we can blow up the ten biggest and most important places in any given country even if we are the weaker one and disrespected, they will not bully as hard due to the risk
Tier 4, let's go.
Blueprint for a more balanced approach, food for thought:
T0: Land armies should stay national, under national control - people who enlist are often staunchly loyal to the country first and foremost. Some countries have conscription. Let's not break that. Countries keep sovereignty over their soil. Also deployment of land forces is a very delicate political decision, more than any other military branch. National governments still have the strongest legitimacy to make such decisions.
T1: Use reinforced qualified majority for defence policy: sanctions, foreign aid, arms export licences, financing and deployment of shared European military resources, R&D. Harmonised military specifications for at least 70% materiel, making procurement cheaper.
T2: Shared strategic European military assets purchased from collective EU budget - air transport, air refuel, anti-missile defence, surveillance awacs, satellites, drones, strategic reserves, cyber, bio/chem protection teams.
T3: European legions - soldiers enlist as Europeans and the legions will be controlled Intergovernmentally with Qualified majority voting, with the exception that any member can veto deployment of these forces on their national soil. Using these forces is a collective shared European responsibility.
T4: Gradually moving to pan-European Air Forces in future. Air campaigns tend to be easiest to gather multilateral support for while Air forces are notoriously expensive and with great potential for overspending if each country went for it alone. European Union would eventually share sovereignty over most of European airspace, though countries may retain sovereignty over critical pockets of national airspace (sensitive military bases, capital city, nuclear sites etc) but in that case they would have to spend more finances for their national air forces.
In my opinion, an army is an organization tightly aligned with sovereignty. How would that ever work in a multi county union. Which country's sovereignty will it protect when it's necessary?
Unfortunately only tier 2 is possible and it should be more but military exports are also connected with sovereignty.
Turkish figure of 1.32 keeps being used even though it's wrong. The Turks are spending well over €40B on defence this year, they just use a different budget structure. Perun made a very interesting video on it, worth a watch.
Turkey's defense budget this year is not 40 billion. The total budget of defense and security sectors such as the ministry of defense, police, gendarmerie, ministry of interior, intelligence agency, defense industry support fund, coast guard, etc. is 40 billion dollars. This year's budget of the Ministry of Defense is only 15 billion dollars. There was a misunderstanding on this matter.
No individual countries, one federalized Europe under a common flag!
Ultimately, I like tier 4 the most because of the scale of deterrence it would provide to the EU, and the scale the EU would have to assist in situations like Ukraine, or other potential conflicts around the world.
Broad international coordination is obviously necessary in today's day and age.
Absolute Masterclass of a video. I fully agree. Tier 2 and 3 would be nice, but Tier 1 is absolutely vital for a start.
0:30 Something worth mentioning here is that a lot of NATO countries have increased their defense budget for 2024 and quite a few of them like France and Bulgaria are aiming for 2% or more.
Yea but 2% of Bulgarias GDP equals round about what I have in coins in my pocket atm..
It's about time. They should have been doing that for decades.
Not for bulgaria, dream on @@CedarHunt
@@CedarHuntFrance traditionally was around that point, 1.9% is not far from the 2%, at this point over time ive just wondered if this was not an ellaborate prank on American isolationists by France since it always wanted its own strategical autonomy and left the Nato joint command stucture for this autonomy too aka just the right to say "f you"
@@erwannthietart3602 The French aren't smart enough for that. They're just petty and arrogant enough to think they can play fairweather friends and still be defended if they are attacked.
I would say that a tier 4 would be best. We should like in other issues pull ourselves toghetter and form a front. Only then will we reach the position of equality whit the big nations that we can have and I don't mean only on the front of deffence.
8:30 I was skeptical about that high number, as I remember EU's population as something around half a billion. But then I realized that you said "continent" and also on the map in the background you highlighted some more countries like Turkey (but not Russia, even though geographically Russia is considered more Europe, at least most of its population lives in geographic Europe).
But my confusion is why mentioning continent when the topic (and the channel) is about EU?
Industrial cooperation is often made harder because of different interests. We need to chose an interest BEFORE the cooperation. For exemple, we want C type of aircraft? Put Germany, Spain and Italy working on it. For X type of aircraft, put France, Sweden and UK
The countries I chose were random btw
Bro how did you put spain above france in "important players"
Leopard 1 as a picture for a newly created European Army? I hope that was unintentional :D
Largely agree. We should in time aim for EU to become an integrated superpower, but start with trust building and filling holes, after he US, like a EU military HQ, battle management, air tankers, air transport, awacs, ISR, satellites etc.
Could an EU Navy or Coast Guard be an option? It wouldn't be a full army of course but the combined operation of a European Navy at least would be more efficient in the long term, standardizing the fleets would be a good investment.
Yes, absolutely. There's literally no reason to not go ahead with that.
as a french we have the companies to develop perfect weapons, or defensive weapons. the funding is the nerves of the war.
a common defence is really important. ukraine is being attacked because it's lonely, if together we need to do together a structured strategy.
imagine if we would have the same incentives as the US or China does for army, tech, food, etc we can compete guys, US GDP is roughly 25 Trilion, china is roughly 20Trilion. us together we are the same as them.
let's face it the time has passed, we now need to be united.
and unanimity within europe doesn't work anymore...
While I agree that we need tier 1 and 2, I also have to agree that we need a HELL of a LOT of effort into making the EU work as a democratic institution. There's some neet ideas, but democracy needs peoples willing attention, effort, and participation. Right now the EU is A. too complex for most to try to understand alongside their national institutions and B. too few people are invested and putting effort into the EU as an institution.
Channels like this are helping, but let's not kid ourselves most people only see the EU on their national news and talk about it a few minutes every few months.
Tier 3/4 would be awful for people wanting to make the military a career. Promotions would only happen to people from a few countries
Operational intimacy, it can only be a French premier coming up with this ;-)
The EU should take it one step at a time. Common procurement before common polixy and all that.
Tier 2 should be first step before Tier 1
Well I think we could unite the fleets of EU countries to one big EU fleet with one command and buy aircraft carriers and submarines in addition, I also think that the air forces should work together much closely and look at our air space as an EU air space and not national ones if we talk about protecting it. It would make it much easier to deploy air crafts from one place to another inside the EU. For that we would need the same aircrafts and same protocols. Difficulties come when we talk about ground forces. I think we would have a common EU army with 60-70k personel that would be huge step ahead but I also think that battlegroups are a good direction. but not whole EU battle groups but to divide th EU to different regions with 2-3 countries soldiers in one group. Like scandinavians, Portugal and Spain etc. So they wouldn't need the whole Eu's aprovel. BTW I'am hungarian (sorry for our government) and I would be ready to give up a few souverinties. But well look we are a small country, we are not related to any other nations here so its not like France and Belgium or Austria and Germany we are alone and there are huge numbers of ethnis hungarian minorities in every bordering country. And we have to do everything to protect their interests which can't happen if we give up too much. Because a country like Spain or France where are minorities that may struggle won't support some other minorities in the other end of the EU. And what would be the gurantee that they would look out for our interests and the interests of hungarian nationals living in other countries?
it's not okay that a jackass like Orban can hijack the whole EU but what would happen if there were 26 Orbans and one sane guy? We cannot see the future it could happen. What would we do than?
Yes
Time to buy more shares in the defense industry
I disagree with the view you're presenting. A common foreign policy should be the last step towards unity because it directly affects a nation's sovereignty over its international relations.
As someone from France, I support a Europe with different levels of integration. At its heart, there should be a federation with a shared army, initially led by France and Germany, but open to others willing to join. I won't list potential countries besides Germany because I can't assume their interest, but any concept without the Franco-German axis is difficult to imagine.
Considering the EU's diversity, a one-size-fits-all approach won't work.
If the EU doesn't fully federate, allowing countries to keep their foreign policies, I still think an EU defense force focused on protecting EU land is necessary. This wouldn't stop countries from having their own expeditionary forces if they wish so.
In a layered EU, there'd be a central federal army, an EU-wide defense force (for all, even non-federated countries), and, optionally, national forces for those not federated.
France and Germany are weak. France is a muslim country. Exactly like Germany
@@Misterx-xx1lj You probably never visited France so why are you crying ? Muslim represent 15% of the population and we are going to stop immigration so it won't be more than that.
Mind your own buisness you are probably coming from a shitty country so you have a lot to do.
I think we should push for Tier 3 because that wouldn't reduce any country sovereignty
United we are stronger. Tier 4 from me with Qual majority.
I seriously wish for the qualified vote majority to pass, its gonna make the eu work so much faster.
The EU is not mandated to have an army. It must require a new or revised treaty.
Yes.
Start by getting rid of Orban
Tier 4 without a hint of a doubt. A United Europe or United States of Europe is mandatory for European Survival.
Yes let there be different cultures, let them be embraced and shared without being tainted, Yes with a common language, might as well be English since all schools have it as a first foreign language, while maintaining State (Ex-Country's) Language as a Primary Language example French in France, German in Germany.
Skeptics are afraid of losing identity or cultural touch, I'm afraid of losing entire Europe clinging to a single tapestry of cultural, national identity.
We must define what we mean underEU defence. Is a EU army to defend central EU against say a Russian invasion, or is an a EU army to defend Cyprus against a Turkey invasion? What is considered as threat from the EU?
It depends on the mood of the bureaucrats.
Why not both?
@@diogorodrigues747 It couldnt be both. Turkey is a part of NATO that is guaranteed essentialy by the US and to add that, Istanbul political mood is Washington key towards the ME, Caucasus and Black sea. The US needs Turkey if it ever hope on keeping Israel and KSA as its twin pillars of hegemony in the ME and IF lets say in the worst situation, letting Turkey invade Cyprus again may very well be a price that Washington willing to pay. Not a single EU nation are willing to go to a direct clash with the US
EU army... and keep everyone out. US and Russia.
We need to aim towards tier 4, but to do it step by step. European innovation projects are a good first step imho, and to insure interoperability of the systems.
Anyway, M. Scholz surely slows us down here...
I think tier 2 is the best. A full EU army that replaces national armies may suffer from lack of manpower, because nationalists tend to be majority in armies, but likely wouldn't participate in an EU army. Tier 2 is more realistic
I am 24 years old and I'm tired of living in a continent that only feels confident in its former glory. We have so much potential to maintain our way of living and protect our liberal values, but it’s a shame that the majority doesn’t want to make that step. I hope that in my lifetime we leave these confusing and disrupted times behind and get to see a united, confident and secure Europa!
I feel that ur idea of a Europe is the Holy Roman Empire XD
TIer 4, but Tier 3 is easier in the short term