European Army

Voted remain, if there is any real weight and legs to this then I would be voting leave if a second referendum ever appeared.

This is a step too far for me in relinquishing sovereign control. Call me old fashioned but I believe our army should swear an oath to the realm and not a bureaucratic trade organisation.

All this talk of Trump is ridiculous, he is likely to be gone in 2 years at the very worst 6. Trump is an excuse for the EU's clear ambition to break from a US led NATO. This is pure French and German ambition and the other members will be dragged along.
 
Voted remain, if there is any real weight and legs to this then I would be voting leave if a second referendum ever appeared.

This is a step too far for me in relinquishing sovereign control. Call me old fashioned but I believe our army swears an oath to the realm and not a bureaucratic trade organisation.

All this talk of Trump is ridiculous, he is likely to be gone in 2 years at the very worst 6. Trump is an excuse for the EU's clear ambition to break from a US led NATO.
Poland, UK, USA the 3 stalwarts of freedom & democracy
 
That’ll be the German army that put on weight during ISAF deployments as they weren’t allowed to leave their bases?

It’s a sad day when both the French and the Italians are more warlike than the Boxheads.
 
Blimey the foamers love this stuff don't they

I don't blame the EU for wanting an army
NATO is great when you have allies

Russia is being aggressive
American president is completely unreliable
We just told the EU to ****off

People talking about Germany like they are still fighting WW2 - get a grip
For the Brexiteer crowing - do you not think that our voting to leave has strengthened their want for this? (let alone losing our veto to stop it)

I'm all for convincing them to instead better fund NATO - but trump is doing a far better job at destabilizing it than strengthening it.
Lol @ calling people foamers when you're implying that European countries don't have 'allies' now.

Let's assume you're right and Trump hates EU Nations and their leaders and so wouldn't ratify article 5. Why would it be in the USA's interest to allow Russia to attack and potentially conquer all of europe? Losing most of the big players of Five Eyes? Having all the resources necessary to survive all trade sanctions, and becoming the strongest power in the world by far? Conspiracy theory gumpf.

NATO is fine, it allows nations to have their own militaries and do what they like, but the most important part of NATO is the defensive pact. An attack on any nation is an attack on all NATO nations. Meaning even if little Montenegro gets attacked by Russia, it's seen as an attack on all of us. This is why NATO is so strong and why the Cold War remained a cold war.

If an EU army forms I don't really care, but that EU army should be a member of NATO, it's in both their interests. I do find it hilarious that the EU is happy to sit back and pay peanuts into its own militaries, but if they got attacked they'd be straight on the blower to the UK and US saying "help us!", so it's fine just let those countries foot the bill... But now they have the money and desire to build their own independent army? It's incredibly insulting to the UK + USA and just shows what everyone said to be a conspiracy, that the United States of Europe is on it's way, is not a conspiracy at all.
 
Yep... if this 'army' is just like what we already have with NATO, or very similar structures etc, what's the issue? Are the people crying about that also crying about NATO at the moment? Wouldn't people want Finland and Sweden, for example, to be protected from Russia like NATO countries are?

Difference is NATO has no one sitting on a throne, control is shared and changes every few years. An EU army would be permanently controlled by someone like Juncker, does that sound safe?

Also with most European NATO members failing to pay their 2%, I can't see this EU army being funded very well.
 
If there's ever a WW3 I'd put money on Germany starting it. They couldn't control Europe with force so they are doing it another way.

If there's a WWIII then my bets on primary instigator would be USA or Israel. The USA has been pursuing a course of Nuclear Primacy and this has pushed us closer to WWIII than we have been in some time:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2006-03-01/rise-us-nuclear-primacy (well worth a read).

Germany is a great deal more at risk of being invaded by Russian forces in a war than the USA is, and therefore has more reason to treat peaceably with Russia.

Russia is busy invading Ukraine, but OK, Germany is the real warmonger.

Crimea, not Ukraine. Or to give it it's full title as was: The Autonomous Republic of Crimea. A region that had its own parliament, was formerly part of Russia before being parcelled off to Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union, is peopled by Ethnically Russian people who speak Russian, wanted to be part of Russia and had their own parliament independent of Ukraine's. And who reject the overthrow of the elected president of the Ukraine in a Western-backed revolution and are glad to be part of Russia again. Just to add a little detail here. ;)
 
Voted remain, if there is any real weight and legs to this then I would be voting leave if a second referendum ever appeared.

This is a step too far for me in relinquishing sovereign control. Call me old fashioned but I believe our army should swear an oath to the realm and not a bureaucratic trade organisation.

All this talk of Trump is ridiculous, he is likely to be gone in 2 years at the very worst 6. Trump is an excuse for the EU's clear ambition to break from a US led NATO. This is pure French and German ambition and the other members will be dragged along.

Pretty much all of this. I also voted Remain but would vote differently today.
 

If there's a WWIII then my bets on primary instigator would be USA or Israel. The USA has been pursuing a course of Nuclear Primacy and this has pushed us closer to WWIII than we have been in some time:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2006-03-01/rise-us-nuclear-primacy (well worth a read).

Germany is a great deal more at risk of being invaded by Russian forces in a war than the USA is, and therefore has more reason to treat peaceably with Russia.



Crimea, not Ukraine. Or to give it it's full title as was: The Autonomous Republic of Crimea. A region that had its own parliament, was formerly part of Russia before being parcelled off to Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union, is peopled by Ethnically Russian people who speak Russian, wanted to be part of Russia and had their own parliament independent of Ukraine's. And who reject the overthrow of the elected president of the Ukraine in a Western-backed revolution and are glad to be part of Russia again. Just to add a little detail here. ;)

Err and Eastern Ukraine itself. Where they are STILL fighting...

Russia invaded Crimea and is now oppressing the natives (Tatars) there.
 
Where’s China in all this? Where are they likely to focus their aggressions?

Well since the US sanctioning China to death they need Europe more than ever, so I doubt they are going to be hostile towards Europe. The US isn't a stable market for them anymore.

What Trump is doing is slowly shifting the balance of power in the world against the US, by annoying everyone else.
 
Lol @ calling people foamers when you're implying that European countries don't have 'allies' now.

Let's assume you're right and Trump hates EU Nations and their leaders and so wouldn't ratify article 5. Why would it be in the USA's interest to allow Russia to attack and potentially conquer all of europe? Losing most of the big players of Five Eyes? Having all the resources necessary to survive all trade sanctions, and becoming the strongest power in the world by far? Conspiracy theory gumpf.

NATO is fine, it allows nations to have their own militaries and do what they like, but the most important part of NATO is the defensive pact. An attack on any nation is an attack on all NATO nations. Meaning even if little Montenegro gets attacked by Russia, it's seen as an attack on all of us. This is why NATO is so strong and why the Cold War remained a cold war.

If an EU army forms I don't really care, but that EU army should be a member of NATO, it's in both their interests. I do find it hilarious that the EU is happy to sit back and pay peanuts into its own militaries, but if they got attacked they'd be straight on the blower to the UK and US saying "help us!", so it's fine just let those countries foot the bill... But now they have the money and desire to build their own independent army? It's incredibly insulting to the UK + USA and just shows what everyone said to be a conspiracy, that the United States of Europe is on it's way, is not a conspiracy at all.

The foamers in this instance being the dudes who just love getting all good n foamy about them nasty EU types, regardless of what the actual debate is about

My point was merely that two of the biggest parts of NATO are less reliable than they were pre-2016
I completely agree on certain countries abdication of their defense responsibilities however

My other point was that while some desired a united states of Europe, we did have the power to stop it, after we leave we will not

--

To people saying how virtuous we are - I wouldn't get too excited about our 2%

It was reported several times lately that how much we committed depended on who you asked

https://www.ft.com/content/c4005130-10dd-11e8-8cb6-b9ccc4c4dbbb
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38971624

also previously we cooked the books by chucking military pensions in as well

https://www.ft.com/content/08e9e07a-c746-11e4-8e1f-00144feab7de
 
No way would I want our forces being dragged into a conflict that we may not agree with simply because we were out voted within the EU parliament. Having our own government dragging us into unnecessary conflict is bad enough as it is, never mind people we didn't elect.

I agree, step too far. I suppose it's irrelevant now anyway.
 
My point was merely that two of the biggest parts of NATO are less reliable than they were pre-2016

You have no evidence for this other than sensationalist bull **** in the media.

The USA or the UK has absolutely nothing to gain from letting an aggressor attack EU nations, in fact they have so much to lose from it. Even if the EU put two fingers up, said **** NATO, **** the USA, got it's own army and then Russia attacked it. I guarantee you that the UK and the USA would help them, not because they're obliged to under NATO but because letting Russia conquer all of Europe is absolute insanity.
 
Which is pathetic and it's showing in their Military. Back in 2017, every German Submarine was out of action for a full year from reasons of accidents, undergoing maintenance, waiting for dry docks for maintenance and overhauling, their entire fleet of heavy transport planes was grounded. The Air Force is in a bad condition, suffering from outdated equipment and a serious lack of spare parts for their aircraft which has resulted in a large amount of their fleet being in a poor condition, unserviceable and thus grounded. I believe at one point their entire attack wing of Tornadoes was grounded. Half their fleet of Eurofighters that includes their Tornadoes again are out of action for the above reasons with out the ones that could fly, only a small amount was classed as "combat ready".

The German army itself has problems with a lack of winter clothing, plate carriers (armour), field craft equipment, night vision goggles, pistols, other basic military equipment you expect an armed forces to have. Their tanks are suffering from the same problems as their aircraft which over half out of action and the tanks themselves need a major upgrade (We in the UK ourselves are overdue for upgrades, it's happening, but at a very slow pace), they are also suffering a large leadership problem, they need to recruit over 20,000 officers. Their main battle rifles need replacing since it's been found out that they suffer problems with accuracy after sustained firing, I believe they are currently in the "process" of that.


Great, let's invade.;)
 
Thank you both. So bringing it back to the original point which was my statement "Trump is, correctly I believe, complaining that several European countries are not paying the amount they committed to, to support NATO." It seems I was wrong to use the word "committed". It was aspirational not a commitment and European countries are theoretically working towards it. But at the same time, whilst I used the wrong word, Trump is correct in pointing out that the USA (and UK and Poland) are shouldering more of a burden for the defence of Europe than other countries and, I believe, that's a fair point, imo.

I know but everything Trump says and does is bad ofc!
 
Where’s China in all this? Where are they likely to focus their aggressions?

China has spent decades really tuning itself to play the global economy. Now they are doing well and are planning to move less desirable industries abroad. I think at this point they will focus their aggressions on anyone who is willing to make waves and ruin stability.

China and the US were closer than ever just prior to these sanctions and were really making loads of ground. The China of today cannot be compared to the China of the 80s.

I think at the moment the biggest aggressors on the world stage are the US in the open and Russia behind the scenes.
 
Difference is NATO has no one sitting on a throne, control is shared and changes every few years. An EU army would be permanently controlled by someone like Juncker, does that sound safe?

Why would an EU army be controlled by a figurehead? Would it not use the same basis that it currently uses, shared throughout the countries.
 
Back
Top Bottom