NationStates

The Islands of Versilia wrote:

Greater Miami Shores wrote:While I agree with Aureumterra most of the time, the problem is, Russia and Russians wont allow it, for Russian Nationalism.

Hence why Europe should unite to a degree that allows such displays of power as dismantling rivals.

Erm even if the EU did unite into a single federal entity like the US, it still would not magically gain such power. It would still be only the second largest economy, soon falling to third place, third in population. It could be in theory powerful (although unlikely given the reluctance towards military spending in Europe along with a general lack of interest in exercising unilateral power amongst the populace along with many in Europe being sympathetic towards Russia) but it would not be THAT powerful.
Not powerful enough to dismantle Russia completely for example.

How exactly would that even be accomplished anyway?

Novus America wrote:

The Islands of Versilia wrote:
Hence why Europe should unite to a degree that allows such displays of power as dismantling rivals.

Erm even if the EU did unite into a single federal state, it still would not magically gain such power. It would still be only the second largest economy, soon falling to third place, third in population. It could be in theory powerful (although unlikely given the reluctance towards military spending in Europe along with a general lack of interest in exercising unilateral power amongst the populace) but it would not be THAT powerful.
Not powerful enough to dismantle Russia completely for example.

How exactly would that even be accomplished anyway?

I'd wonder how a united Europe would work when it comes funding and running a European military. Militarism is quite unpopular in most of Western Europe, and the eastern Europeans seem to be less inclined towards joining any pan-European state.

Adamede wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Erm even if the EU did unite into a single federal state, it still would not magically gain such power. It would still be only the second largest economy, soon falling to third place, third in population. It could be in theory powerful (although unlikely given the reluctance towards military spending in Europe along with a general lack of interest in exercising unilateral power amongst the populace) but it would not be THAT powerful.
Not powerful enough to dismantle Russia completely for example.

How exactly would that even be accomplished anyway?

I'd wonder how a united Europe would work when it comes funding and running a European military. Militarism is quite unpopular in most of Western Europe, and the eastern Europeans seem to be less inclined towards joining any pan-European state.

I support a European Army for mutual defense, made of a Union of European Nations.

Adamede wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Erm even if the EU did unite into a single federal state, it still would not magically gain such power. It would still be only the second largest economy, soon falling to third place, third in population. It could be in theory powerful (although unlikely given the reluctance towards military spending in Europe along with a general lack of interest in exercising unilateral power amongst the populace) but it would not be THAT powerful.
Not powerful enough to dismantle Russia completely for example.

How exactly would that even be accomplished anyway?

I'd wonder how a united Europe would work when it comes funding and running a European military. Militarism is quite unpopular in most of Western Europe, and the eastern Europeans seem to be less inclined towards joining any pan-European state.

Wrong. European federalism is more popular in the east than the west. Only three eastern countries fall between the EU average in support for European federalism, while five western countries do so. The levels of support in the east are much higher too. Portugal and Malta are the most supportive of European federalism in the west, with support +20 support in EB81. Lithuania, Romania, Hungary, and Poland all smashed this level of enthusiasm for it, Poland was over +40 in favour. In addition Croatia fell just shy of +20.

Ansarre wrote:

Adamede wrote:I'd wonder how a united Europe would work when it comes funding and running a European military. Militarism is quite unpopular in most of Western Europe, and the eastern Europeans seem to be less inclined towards joining any pan-European state.

Wrong. European federalism is more popular in the east than the west. Only three eastern countries fall between the EU average in support for European federalism, while five western countries do so. The levels of support in the east are much higher too. Portugal and Malta are the most supportive of European federalism in the west, with support +20 support in EB81. Lithuania, Romania, Hungary, and Poland all smashed this level of enthusiasm for it, Poland was over +40 in favour. In addition Croatia fell just shy of +20.

You appear to be right just based off the numbers you gave, I'll give you that.

Vaspelia wrote:

The Islands of Versilia wrote:
Hence why Europe should unite to a degree that allows such displays of power as dismantling rivals.

We can stop with the meme of "All Europe should be united against RUSSIAN AGRESSION"?. Apart from small actual professional units, it's military is as depressing as most of the country is. They are only a threat for surrounding countries that are way much smaller than them, even Ukraine has managed to not bend. Not to mention what the common Russian conscript founds on the den of crime and abuse the Armed Forces is. And size does not really matter, as individual lone countries can still project power just fine, like France did in it's former colonial countries.

Russian interference in otherwise civilised democracy should be punitively punished. Russia is a threat. Ignoring that fact only benefits Moscow.

Novus America wrote:

The Islands of Versilia wrote:
Hence why Europe should unite to a degree that allows such displays of power as dismantling rivals.

Erm even if the EU did unite into a single federal entity like the US, it still would not magically gain such power. It would still be only the second largest economy, soon falling to third place, third in population. It could be in theory powerful (although unlikely given the reluctance towards military spending in Europe along with a general lack of interest in exercising unilateral power amongst the populace along with many in Europe being sympathetic towards Russia) but it would not be THAT powerful.
Not powerful enough to dismantle Russia completely for example.

How exactly would that even be accomplished anyway?

I’m not informed enough to line out how it could realistically be achieved. But European empowerment and Russian pacification are two results I very much desire myself.

In general I support this, but the current EU is too bureaucratic and inept for its own good. The Schengen Agreement can't work if there isn't a stricter unified border.

Novus America wrote:Not powerful enough to dismantle Russia completely for example.

Do we need to?

Vivolkha wrote:

Novus America wrote:Not powerful enough to dismantle Russia completely for example.

Do we need to?

In fact, the EU can.Europe has more air and armored forces than Russia.And the presence of France guarantees nuclear strike power.MEGA!

the EU is trying to do what switzerland did, 3 minor regions made a defence pact, stayed friends for dozens/hubndreds of years, became a single country over time, others were brought into the defence pact and brought in aswell, but this was a process that took hundreds of years and was between culturally similar regions, what the EU is trying to do now is smash together very different cultures in a short amount of time, its not going to work, its only going to cause strife and slow down any potential unification!

what they should do is unify the smaller countries slowly, over time, then the larger countries begin 'cultural exchanges' or encourage migration between 2 neighboring large countries, this will homogenise the cultures, making people more on board with any idea of unification.

britain will the hardest to bring into such a union, its surprisingly different from mainland europe culturally and socially, and its an island nation, making sharing of culture harder, since you can pop in your car and drive to the next town in 30 minutes for the price of fuel alone, instead you need to take a ferry or the channel tunnel!

tl;dr: unification is possible, but it needs to be a process of hundreds of years and between neighbors first, not a couple dozen and all at once!

If Flanders and Wallonia are so divided in Belgium, imagine how a united Europe would be.

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:

Vivolkha wrote:Do we need to?

In fact, the EU can.Europe has more air and armored forces than Russia.And the presence of France guarantees nuclear strike power.MEGA!

We might be able to - still that doesn't mean that we need to or that we should.

Imperium Malignis wrote:the EU is trying to do what switzerland did, 3 minor regions made a defence pact, stayed friends for dozens/hubndreds of years, became a single country over time, others were brought into the defence pact and brought in aswell, but this was a process that took hundreds of years and was between culturally similar regions, what the EU is trying to do now is smash together very different cultures in a short amount of time, its not going to work, its only going to cause strife and slow down any potential unification!

what they should do is unify the smaller countries slowly, over time, then the larger countries begin 'cultural exchanges' or encourage migration between 2 neighboring large countries, this will homogenise the cultures, making people more on board with any idea of unification.

britain will the hardest to bring into such a union, its surprisingly different from mainland europe culturally and socially, and its an island nation, making sharing of culture harder, since you can pop in your car and drive to the next town in 30 minutes for the price of fuel alone, instead you need to take a ferry or the channel tunnel!

tl;dr: unification is possible, but it needs to be a process of hundreds of years and between neighbors first, not a couple dozen and all at once!

(I hope) nobody expects unification to happen quickly. I surely won't be alive to see it.

Dangine wrote:If Flanders and Wallonia are so divided in Belgium, imagine how a united Europe would be.

Indeed.

Vivolkha wrote:

Novus America wrote:Not powerful enough to dismantle Russia completely for example.

Do we need to?

No. We do not need to of course. I never said we should try, I just pointed out Europe dies not realistically have the will or ability even if we did want to try.

The only thing the countries of Europe have in common are all the times they tried to kill each other.

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:

Vivolkha wrote:Do we need to?

In fact, the EU can.Europe has more air and armored forces than Russia.And the presence of France guarantees nuclear strike power.MEGA!

On paper kind of has more, although Europe has a severe shortage of strategic aircraft and much of its tanks are non operational from lack of parts and maintenance.
But sure the EU can in theory field a much larger and better military than Russia, havinv a much larger population, economy and superior technology but it takes more than that.

Loss of strength gradient is key here. The further the advance from your supply bases, the weaker your ground forces especially get (although tactical aircraft have a limited range as well, it applies to ships and aircraft but to a lesser degree).

France also only has 200 nukes compared to nearly 7,000 for Russia (admittedly many of those might be non functional but still).

The EU absolutely can in theory (but not in practice as it lacks the will) build a force such it needs not fear a RussIan attack, but defending against an attack and trying to occupy a space as large and inhospitable as Russia, against staunch opposition and overwhelming nuclear superiority on behalf of the Russians.

Building up a defense/containment force which the EU should do, is very different than trying an all out invasion of Russia which the EU should not do. And will not do.

Novus America wrote:

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:In fact, the EU can.Europe has more air and armored forces than Russia.And the presence of France guarantees nuclear strike power.MEGA!

On paper kind of has more, although Europe has a severe shortage of strategic aircraft and much of its tanks are non operational from lack of parts and maintenance.
But sure the EU can in theory field a much larger and better military than Russia, Having a much larger population but it takes more than that.

Loss of strength gradient is key here. The further the advance from your supply bases, the weaker your ground forces especially get (although tactical aircraft have a limited range as well, it applies to ships and aircraft but to a lesser degree).

France also only has 200 nukes compared to nearly 7,000 for Russia (admittedly many of those might be non functional but still).

The EU absolutely can in theory (but not in practice as it lacks the will) build a force such it needs not fear a RussIan attack, but defending against an attack and trying to occupy a space as large and inhospitable as Russia, against staunch opposition and overwhelming nuclear superiority on behalf of the Russians.

Building up a defense/containment force which the EU should do, is very different than trying an all out invasion of Russia which the EU should not do. And will not do.

The EU will not invade Russia, and Russia will not invade the EU.

Vivolkha wrote:

Novus America wrote:
On paper kind of has more, although Europe has a severe shortage of strategic aircraft and much of its tanks are non operational from lack of parts and maintenance.
But sure the EU can in theory field a much larger and better military than Russia, Having a much larger population but it takes more than that.

Loss of strength gradient is key here. The further the advance from your supply bases, the weaker your ground forces especially get (although tactical aircraft have a limited range as well, it applies to ships and aircraft but to a lesser degree).

France also only has 200 nukes compared to nearly 7,000 for Russia (admittedly many of those might be non functional but still).

The EU absolutely can in theory (but not in practice as it lacks the will) build a force such it needs not fear a RussIan attack, but defending against an attack and trying to occupy a space as large and inhospitable as Russia, against staunch opposition and overwhelming nuclear superiority on behalf of the Russians.

Building up a defense/containment force which the EU should do, is very different than trying an all out invasion of Russia which the EU should not do. And will not do.

The EU will not invade Russia, and Russia will not invade the EU.

Very true the EU will not invade Russia. But some people were saying it should or could.
Russia invading the EU is not likely either, although an attempt on the Baltics cannot be completely ruled out. Thus the EU needs to build up defensive forces large enough to deter any Russian thoughts about doing so, but not an invasion force.

Novus America wrote:

Vivolkha wrote:The EU will not invade Russia, and Russia will not invade the EU.

Very true the EU will not invade Russia. But some people were saying it should or could.
Russia invading the EU is not likely either, although an attempt on the Baltics cannot be completely ruled out. Thus the EU needs to build up defensive forces large enough to deter any Russian thoughts about doing so, but not an invasion force.

Russian attacks on the Baltic will not be military, that would be suicide for Russia (conversely, an invasion of Russia by the EU is also suicide). Instead, expect propaganda campaigns, coordinated cyberattacks, and intimidatory military exercises. In other words, nothing that we haven't seen by now.

Slavakino wrote:

The Alma Mater wrote:
Why assume it will be like the eu ? Traditionally Europe is a continent of conquering warmongers.

Not anymore, due to progressive crap its gone soft

In terms of human history, it isn't too long ago since Europe had all sorts of "regressive crap" (ie militarism, absolute monarchies, christian conservatism in charge everywhere).

The result? Endless wars. Colonization. Slavery (in the colonies). Suppression of workers. Imposition of religion at the point of a gun.

I think I prefer "progressive crap".

Anyway, there's no chance of a Eurofederation or whatever they'd call it, it would require western Europeans to give up a sizeable chunk of their wealth, since wealth disparity between Euro countries is far larger than it is between US states.

Vivolkha wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Very true the EU will not invade Russia. But some people were saying it should or could.
Russia invading the EU is not likely either, although an attempt on the Baltics cannot be completely ruled out. Thus the EU needs to build up defensive forces large enough to deter any Russian thoughts about doing so, but not an invasion force.

Russian attacks on the Baltic will not be military, that would be suicide for Russia (conversely, an invasion of Russia by the EU is also suicide). Instead, expect propaganda campaigns, coordinated cyberattacks, and intimidatory military exercises. In other words, nothing that we haven't seen by now.

Probably not be military only because Russia fears a military response, hence the need for sufficient military defenses.

Vivolkha wrote:

Novus America wrote:Not powerful enough to dismantle Russia completely for example.

Do we need to?

Sure, why not.

So you want to dismantle Russia. The Ottoman tried and this happened. Thirty seconds on the following clip is referring to the Ottomans - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV0-gMuAClQ - Ha Ha.

Seriously, I think that if the EU. and Russia agree to make Ukraine a buffer state plus no more military expansion into each others sphere of influence that all will be happiness between the EU. and Russia. It seems Russia is more interested in developing there Far East and Northern coast sea route, which is opening up due to the Arctic ice melting. But what they consider there major security problem in Western Russia has kind of prevented them from fully implementing there plans. Seems this has been there historical problem. Russia expanded into Alaska and California but in the end had to sell there rights to those places because of major security concerns in Western Russia with the Ottomans and other European nations. You cannot properly develop a far-flung part of your empire if the main part, the core of Russia, could be at risk of being invaded.

Remember Yugoslavia? Yeah, that is why Europe would never unite

The amount of people saying "Rusia bed" is hilarious. Russia should be an ally with the USA