EU army vs. NATO

[Novus America]

Isn't that Franco-Germano unit a mess?

I imagine language and communications would be an issue.

[The Nihilistic view]

I should probably add that the only time Article 5 has ever been invoked all NATO members took part in the fallout which resulted in the ISAF. Including France. When necessary because something actually has relevance to NATO it seems like every member is willing to play their part.

[Herargon]

Isn't that Franco-Germano unit a mess?

I imagine language and communications would be an issue.

Not really. The EU has 24 official languages, but 3 working languages (English, French, and German). The EU's military corps mostly uses English, so I don't think there will be a linguistic problem when it would be expanded. An even more neutral language would be Esperanto, which is very easy to learn, — one downside to it though, is that it looks ugly to me. Then I'd much prefer Latin, but again, that language has an expansive case system that is unknown in French, Italian, Spanish, and even other Germanic languages like English and Dutch.*

* Although I myself make use of the case system in Dutch every now and then, because I like it.

[Implacable Death]

What you guys are missing is that the EU is not one entity. In fact, a lot of people (me included) don't even want there to be an EU in the first place. You need to train together to fight well together, not to mention the fact that, even in a place something as small as Europe compared to the US, there are many disparate cultures with its many differences.

[Baltenstein]

Isn't that Franco-Germano unit a mess?

Is it? They seem to have performed well in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

[Imperializt Russia]

Political abuse of what and by what?

What "forced fully dedicated armed forces"?

NATO is a pact. The EU would be a command.

Of demanding it to be taken further from its baseline 'command structure' idea to an literal army.

Such, the EU could demand its member states to start providing manpower for its new army.

So, what significant purpose would this command serve then? What good reason is there to support it?

Why would they do that? For what purpose?

"New Army". It's not. It's a unified command to unite parts of the armies that already exist.

I've already explaining it about three times.

The EU Army would not be trying to replace NATO, because that is dumb and makes no sense. It would be a way of coordinating with NATO more efficiently.

The EU and US really do not see eye to eye. Remember when France completely snubbed the US and UK over Iraq?

You mean that time neither the US nor UK invoked Article 5?

To be honest at that point I think France were still officially out of it anyway,

Because they couldn't get away with doing so.
France was never "officially" out of NATO. IIRC, all that happened in the sixties was that they didn't go to Germany and just sat in a sulk beyond the Rhine for forty years. They were always still going to participate if something actually happened.

I imagine language and communications would be an issue.

Not really. The EU has 24 official languages, but 3 working languages (English, French, and German). The EU's military corps mostly uses English, so I don't think there will be a linguistic problem when it would be expanded. An even more neutral language would be Esperanto, which is very easy to learn, — one downside to it though, is that it looks ugly to me. Then I'd much prefer Latin, but again, that language has an expansive case system that is unknown in French, Italian, Spanish, and even other Germanic languages like English and Dutch.*

* Although I myself make use of the case system in Dutch every now and then, because I like it.

Esperanto is easy to learn, because it was specifically designed to be.

The issue is, no-one has learnt it, it's a dead language that sadly never went anywhere.

What you guys are missing is that the EU is not one entity. In fact, a lot of people (me included) don't even want there to be an EU in the first place. You need to train together to fight well together, not to mention the fact that, even in a place something as small as Europe compared to the US, there are many disparate cultures with its many differences.

The European Union has about 500 million citizens to the US' 300 million.

A lot of people don't want there to be a European Union, you're right. It's only "a lot" in the sense that it's an opinion held by some people within a population of 500 million. It's not a mainstream opinion at all. Support for the EU and being in the EU typically hovers over 50%, or at least well over support for countries leaving.

"You need to train together to fight together", err, what do you think the unified command is there for.
"Train together to fight together" is an adage for small units, and the camaraderie between men. It's much less relevant for the strategic level of cooperation that is being discussed here.

[Uxupox]

Isn't that Franco-Germano unit a mess?

Is it? They seem to have performed well in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

Bosnia and Kosovo are not really combat zones and in Afghanistan it was France who "invested and provided the momentum" in Afghanistan. And you know what a a defense expert said about the whole operation led by the French? It was "very dysfunctional".

[Flohental]

I imagine language and communications would be an issue.

Not really. The EU has 24 official languages, but 3 working languages (English, French, and German). The EU's military corps mostly uses English, so I don't think there will be a linguistic problem when it would be expanded. An even more neutral language would be Esperanto, which is very easy to learn, — one downside to it though, is that it looks ugly to me. Then I'd much prefer Latin, but again, that language has an expansive case system that is unknown in French, Italian, Spanish, and even other Germanic languages like English and Dutch.*

* Although I myself make use of the case system in Dutch every now and then, because I like it.

It might be easy for one person to learn Esperanto, but it would be really difficult to teach it to an army. The easiest language to use, is one you already know. There is already plenty of English speakers and an infrastructure that teaches it.

Look at Ireland and their efforts to make people speak Gaelic.

[Novus America]

I imagine language and communications would be an issue.

Not really. The EU has 24 official languages, but 3 working languages (English, French, and German). The EU's military corps mostly uses English, so I don't think there will be a linguistic problem when it would be expanded. An even more neutral language would be Esperanto, which is very easy to learn, — one downside to it though, is that it looks ugly to me. Then I'd much prefer Latin, but again, that language has an expansive case system that is unknown in French, Italian, Spanish, and even other Germanic languages like English and Dutch.*

* Although I myself make use of the case system in Dutch every now and then, because I like it.

Is every French and German soldier fluent in English?
English is already the de facto international language, but not everyone speaks it well of course.

[Republic of the Cristo]

The EU can barely maintain it's own monetary system ( some nations even choosing to opt out of the system entirely, nods towards UK ). The EU would completely incompetent in forming any semblance of a federal military. Not to mention, the vast burden of the under taking would be under taken by a few nations.

[Imperializt Russia]

The EU can barely maintain it's own monetary system ( some nations even choosing to opt out of the system entirely, nods towards UK ). The EU would completely incompetent in forming any semblance of a federal military. Not to mention, the vast burden of the under taking would be under taken by a few nations.

You see the thing is, economics and the military aren't the same thing, and aren't run by the same people.

[Ifreann]

The EU can barely maintain it's own monetary system ( some nations even choosing to opt out of the system entirely, nods towards UK ). The EU would completely incompetent in forming any semblance of a federal military. Not to mention, the vast burden of the under taking would be under taken by a few nations.

You see the thing is, economics and the military aren't the same thing, and aren't run by the same people.

Now that George Osborne isn't doing anything important we're looking into getting him for the EU Supreme Commander role.

[Imperializt Russia]

You see the thing is, economics and the military aren't the same thing, and aren't run by the same people.

Now that George Osborne isn't doing anything important we're looking into getting him for the EU Supreme Commander role.

"What do you mean air defences? Are the MiGs flying over you right now?
Lease them to the Russians to save money, and if you need them, we can buy them back."

[Vlamistaatti]

Of demanding it to be taken further from its baseline 'command structure' idea to an literal army.

Oh no guys, what if the countries in the EU had an army?

I mean, they already have 28, but one more would be super bad!

Rather significant difference being, that hypothetical army would answer to EU's "government", which ultimately represents only itself.

Obvious factor to note, guess it just flew right over your head?

[Imperializt Russia]

Oh no guys, what if the countries in the EU had an army?

I mean, they already have 28, but one more would be super bad!

Rather significant difference being, that hypothetical army would answer to EU's "government", which ultimately represents only itself.

Obvious factor to note, guess it just flew right over your head?

No, the EU government represents the 28 member states, that whole thing about representatives.

Are you implying that this "EU government" in charge of this military command that consists entirely of other country's military forces would up and do something bizarre?
Why would it do this?
Why would the forces do this?

[The Kievan People]

It's a good idea militarily.

But it's a political non-starter. Europe's military capabilities rot because European voters do not value them, do not want to pay for them and are uncomfortable even thinking about violence. This will not suddenly change because a new ABC international organization was created.

[Vlamistaatti]

Rather significant difference being, that hypothetical army would answer to EU's "government", which ultimately represents only itself.

Obvious factor to note, guess it just flew right over your head?

No, the EU government represents the 28 member states, that whole thing about representatives.

Are you implying that this "EU government" in charge of this military command that consists entirely of other country's military forces would up and do something bizarre?
Why would it do this?
Why would the forces do this?

No, no they don't. EU's governmental body (more so the Commission then parliament) only 'represent' its own political agenda.

Maybe? No? Perhaps they very well could do, whatever vague thing you are suggesting with the term 'bizarre' - After all EU's interests often have trouble aligning with the interests of those it pretends to represent.

Excellent that someone mentioned something about finances earlier on, that remands me. Sounds like another attempt for EU of trying to leech off more money from its member states.

[Ifreann]

Oh no guys, what if the countries in the EU had an army?

I mean, they already have 28, but one more would be super bad!

Rather significant difference being, that hypothetical army would answer to EU's "government", which ultimately represents only itself.

Obvious factor to note, guess it just flew right over your head?

Represents only itself? I thought the EU did whatever the US tells it to?

[Vlamistaatti]

Rather significant difference being, that hypothetical army would answer to EU's "government", which ultimately represents only itself.

Obvious factor to note, guess it just flew right over your head?

Represents only itself? I thought the EU did whatever the US tells it to?

Indeed, in the terms when speaking of the assumed setting that in European Union all 28 nation's interests are somehow unanimously represented by a 'government'
Which in turn is of course hardly believable. As the power holders in the Union have no issues disregarding the well being of a member nation in order to push their own policy.

When comparing EU to US relations, EU does have much trouble putting its personal policy going, rather then just doing what the USA's government will tell them to do.

Nice bait though, you should try bit harder.

[Ifreann]

Represents only itself? I thought the EU did whatever the US tells it to?

Indeed, in the terms when speaking of the assumed setting that in European Union all 28 nation's interests are somehow unanimously represented by a 'government'
Which in turn is of course hardly believable. As the power holders in the Union have no issues disregarding the well being of a member nation in order to push their own policy.

When comparing EU to US relations, EU does have much trouble putting its personal policy going, rather then just doing what the USA's government will tell them to do.

You'd have me believe that the EU is motivated purely by self-interest, with no regard for member states, but also spinelessly does whatever the US demands of it.

Is this like how Bush is somehow both a moron who can barely speak his native language and an evil genius who masterminded every world event that occurred during his time in office?

Nice bait though, you should try bit harder.

Excuse me?

[Vlamistaatti]

Indeed, in the terms when speaking of the assumed setting that in European Union all 28 nation's interests are somehow unanimously represented by a 'government'
Which in turn is of course hardly believable. As the power holders in the Union have no issues disregarding the well being of a member nation in order to push their own policy.

When comparing EU to US relations, EU does have much trouble putting its personal policy going, rather then just doing what the USA's government will tell them to do.

You'd have me believe that the EU is motivated purely by self-interest, with no regard for member states, but also spinelessly does whatever the US demands of it.

Is this like how Bush is somehow both a moron who can barely speak his native language and an evil genius who masterminded every world event that occurred during his time in office?

Nice bait though, you should try bit harder.

Excuse me?

Yes it comes with the power differences, EU versus a singular nation and depending on how actually relevant that country is.
In turn USA versus the EU.

If EU actually had any sense of a 'spine' in regards to its interaction with the States, we might not even have a refugee crisis problem to begin with. Then again that is assuming that EU even cares about the crisis sincerely.

[Ifreann]

You'd have me believe that the EU is motivated purely by self-interest, with no regard for member states, but also spinelessly does whatever the US demands of it.

Is this like how Bush is somehow both a moron who can barely speak his native language and an evil genius who masterminded every world event that occurred during his time in office?


Excuse me?

Yes it comes with the power differences, EU versus a singular nation and depending on how actually relevant that country is.
In turn USA versus the EU.

If EU actually had any sense of a 'spine' in regards to its interaction with the States, we might not even have a refugee crisis problem to begin with. Then again that is assuming that EU even cares about the crisis sincerely.

Citizen, I cannot even fathom the levels of cynicism you have plumbed.

[Vlamistaatti]

Yes it comes with the power differences, EU versus a singular nation and depending on how actually relevant that country is.
In turn USA versus the EU.

If EU actually had any sense of a 'spine' in regards to its interaction with the States, we might not even have a refugee crisis problem to begin with. Then again that is assuming that EU even cares about the crisis sincerely.

Citizen, I cannot even fathom the levels of cynicism you have plumbed.

First i'd say maybe, but I'm going to have to lean on happening to prefer being more of a realist. So no, no particular cynicism involved.

[Imperializt Russia]

No, the EU government represents the 28 member states, that whole thing about representatives.

Are you implying that this "EU government" in charge of this military command that consists entirely of other country's military forces would up and do something bizarre?
Why would it do this?
Why would the forces do this?

No, no they don't. EU's governmental body (more so the Commission then parliament) only 'represent' its own political agenda.

Maybe? No? Perhaps they very well could do, whatever vague thing you are suggesting with the term 'bizarre' - After all EU's interests often have trouble aligning with the interests of those it pretends to represent.

Excellent that someone mentioned something about finances earlier on, that remands me. Sounds like another attempt for EU of trying to leech off more money from its member states.

Get off the conspiracy horse.

It's very high, you might hurt yourself.

[Imperializt Russia]

You'd have me believe that the EU is motivated purely by self-interest, with no regard for member states, but also spinelessly does whatever the US demands of it.

Is this like how Bush is somehow both a moron who can barely speak his native language and an evil genius who masterminded every world event that occurred during his time in office?


Excuse me?

Yes it comes with the power differences, EU versus a singular nation and depending on how actually relevant that country is.
In turn USA versus the EU.

If EU actually had any sense of a 'spine' in regards to its interaction with the States, we might not even have a refugee crisis problem to begin with. Then again that is assuming that EU even cares about the crisis sincerely.

List of countries the """migrant crisis""" is absolutely nothing to do with:

Venezuela
Cameroon
USA
Djibouti
Fiji