EU Army

1966_and_all_that said:
Look Jaffa, the world of international arms sales is one in which national defence doesn't seem to get a look-in. It's tawdry. My point was that Argentina used armaments supplied by us to a regime that we knew was dangerous and anti-civil rights. Your point about France is equally valid and, yes, they do occasionally come across as duplicitous on the World stage. But...if the balloon were ever to go up again, they would be with us. As per this thread, we need to be onside with the French and (though they cringe from saying it), they need to be onside with us.
Hate thy neighbour but always side with them.
Click to expand...
Can’t disagree with any of that. 👍

But If the balloon ever did go up and I were 30 years younger and got called up I’d make sure I’d be behind the French element that’s for sure.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
*sigh*

UK military expenditure in 2020 (according to Statistica) was US$ 59.2 bn. The total expenditure of the 24 smallest military budgets in the EU in 2020 amounted to US$ 84.2 bn.

The 5 largest military spending states in Europe in 2020 were:

US$ bn
United Kingdom 59.2
Germany 52.8
France 52.7
Italy 28.9
Spain 17.1

The number of separate military conflicts (ie. not those identified individually within separately identifiable wars) in Europe since the end of WW2, amounts to approximately 70. It would be worthwhile, not only in terms of a Russian or a Middle Eastern threat, if Europe could work together in terms of foreign policy, military budget co-ordination and strategically, in order to reduce and combat such threats as they arise.
Click to expand...

OK '66 I'm happy to debate this with you, since you seem always open to sensible discussion unlike the sneering and name calling that seems to be prevalent on this board. The figures I quoted in the O/P were the latest official Europa statistics for 2019 released on 27 August 2021. There are no official audited stats for 2020. The UK spent €46.9bn on defence which compared with €47.4bn for 24 EU countries apart from France €35.8bn, Germany €32.8bn and Italy €21.3bn.

With regard to the funding of an EU army, it would, in my opinion, be a perfect situation for China and Russia to be faced with a significantly weakened NATO.

NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg said "A strategic EU force would risk overstretching the scarce resources of NATO allies. Any attempt to weaken the bond between North America and Europe will not only weaken NATO, it will divide Europe. Any attempt to establish parallel structures will duplicate the command structure and weaken our joint capability to work together because with scarce resources we need to prevent duplication and overlapping efforts. It would be better for EU members to meet the pledge of 2% of GDP to defence spending" (Of the 27, only Estonia and Greece met this target last year)

So, do you believe that the UK should become involved in such an arrangement and weaken the already stretched resources of NATO, in what an Italian MP has described as "a pipe dream which will alienate both London and Washington"?
 
Foolweary said:
Despite the fact the EU seems to spend 4 times as much on its military than the UK we have Tommy two jags saying the EU has no defence to speak of.
Despite the fact the French are the most successful military nation on Earth we have numerous people furthering George Bush's surrender monkey myth.
Let's also remind ourselves that the American propaganda machine invented the surrender monkey myth because the French refused to invade Iraq with them. While we British turned ourselves into America's poodle. Seems to me the French were displaying a lot more balls by telling the yanks to fůck off.
Click to expand...

1. The UK spends 14m Euro each year more than France on military defence.

2. You're confusing domestic military defence with EU defence.
 
Tangojoe said:
OK '66 I'm happy to debate this with you, since you seem always open to sensible discussion unlike the sneering and name calling that seems to be prevalent on this board. The figures I quoted in the O/P were the latest official Europa statistics for 2019 released on 27 August 2021. There are no official audited stats for 2020. The UK spent €46.9bn on defence which compared with €47.4bn for 24 EU countries apart from France €35.8bn, Germany €32.8bn and Italy €21.3bn.

With regard to the funding of an EU army, it would, in my opinion, be a perfect situation for China and Russia to be faced with a significantly weakened NATO.

NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg said "A strategic EU force would risk overstretching the scarce resources of NATO allies. Any attempt to weaken the bond between North America and Europe will not only weaken NATO, it will divide Europe. Any attempt to establish parallel structures will duplicate the command structure and weaken our joint capability to work together because with scarce resources we need to prevent duplication and overlapping efforts. It would be better for EU members to meet the pledge of 2% of GDP to defence spending" (Of the 27, only Estonia and Greece met this target last year)

So, do you believe that the UK should become involved in such an arrangement and weaken the already stretched resources of NATO, in what an Italian MP has described as "a pipe dream which will alienate both London and Washington"?
Click to expand...
Right. So you now agree that 24 EU member states (excluding Germany, France and Italy) spent more on defence than the U.K (47.4bn compared to 46.9bn). But that isn’t what you claimed in the op. You claimed the opposite.

And I assume you also agree the EU member states combined also spend massively more than the U.K.? Which again certainly wasn’t the impression you gave in your op.

That aside I agree with a lot of what you say about an EU Army potentially undermining NATO. If you’d made that point and stuck to the facts then you wouldn’t have been pulled up. Instead you preferred spin and to make childish comments about “Manny Macron” and then got narky because you got the reaction you were looking for.
 
Tangojoe said:
OK '66 I'm happy to debate this with you, since you seem always open to sensible discussion unlike the sneering and name calling that seems to be prevalent on this board. The figures I quoted in the O/P were the latest official Europa statistics for 2019 released on 27 August 2021. There are no official audited stats for 2020. The UK spent €46.9bn on defence which compared with €47.4bn for 24 EU countries apart from France €35.8bn, Germany €32.8bn and Italy €21.3bn.

With regard to the funding of an EU army, it would, in my opinion, be a perfect situation for China and Russia to be faced with a significantly weakened NATO.

NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg said "A strategic EU force would risk overstretching the scarce resources of NATO allies. Any attempt to weaken the bond between North America and Europe will not only weaken NATO, it will divide Europe. Any attempt to establish parallel structures will duplicate the command structure and weaken our joint capability to work together because with scarce resources we need to prevent duplication and overlapping efforts. It would be better for EU members to meet the pledge of 2% of GDP to defence spending" (Of the 27, only Estonia and Greece met this target last year)

So, do you believe that the UK should become involved in such an arrangement and weaken the already stretched resources of NATO, in what an Italian MP has described as "a pipe dream which will alienate both London and Washington"?
Click to expand...
In a sense, Stoltenberg speaks with his master's voice...he can't afford to piss off the Americans. However, in the short and medium term he has a point. In the long term, Europe needs to have a unified voice. It's now 72 years since NATOwas founded and the military principles that stood then do not stand now. Europe and Russia will NOT begin a nuclear war. It is not in Russia's interests to move westwards. In fact, the whole emphasis in the past 45 years has seen them move eastwards and northwards (with the end of the USSR. Yes, Putin has dreams of a greater Russia and feels humiliated by the Gorbachev period but the world is not going to step backwards as far as the North German plain is concerned.

So, Europe has to look forwards, with or without NATO. It's not wrong or scary or a mistake. It's inevitable and needs to involve Britain. We are a big player and posters should not feel so insecure as they seem to do

PS. My figures for 2020 are correct. Statistics schmatistics, as they don't say.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Right. So you now agree that 24 EU member states (excluding Germany, France and Italy) spent more on defence than the U.K (47.4bn compared to 46.9bn). But that isn’t what you claimed in the op. You claimed the opposite.

And I assume you also agree the EU member states combined also spend massively more than the U.K.? Which again certainly wasn’t the impression you gave in your op.

That aside I agree with a lot of what you say about an EU Army potentially undermining NATO. If you’d made that point and stuck to the facts then you wouldn’t have been pulled up. Instead you preferred spin and to make childish comments about “Manny Macron” and then got narky because you got the reaction you were looking for.
Click to expand...

Well what do you know? Instead of 24 member states spending a combined amount less than the UK on defence, they actually spent 1% more. That's 24 countries spending nearly enough to buy one plane.

You seem remarkably similar to a teacher I once had. Always trying to make an irrelevant point and always sounding like a dickhead.
 
Tangojoe said:
Well what do you know? Instead of 24 member states spending a combined amount less than the UK on defence, they actually spent 1% more. That's 24 countries spending nearly enough to buy one plane.

You seem remarkably similar to a teacher I once had. Always trying to make an irrelevant point and always sounding like a dickhead.
Click to expand...
That's AVFTT surely?
 
Tangojoe said:
Well what do you know? Instead of 24 member states spending a combined amount less than the UK on defence, they actually spent 1% more. That's 24 countries spending nearly enough to buy one plane.

You seem remarkably similar to a teacher I once had. Always trying to make an irrelevant point and always sounding like a dickhead.
Click to expand...
No need for insults. Just admit you got it wrong.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
In a sense, Stoltenberg speaks with his master's voice...he can't afford to piss off the Americans. However, in the short and medium term he has a point. In the long term, Europe needs to have a unified voice. It's now 72 years since NATOwas founded and the military principles that stood then do not stand now. Europe and Russia will NOT begin a nuclear war. It is not in Russia's interests to move westwards. In fact, the whole emphasis in the past 45 years has seen them move eastwards and northwards (with the end of the USSR. Yes, Putin has dreams of a greater Russia and feels humiliated by the Gorbachev period but the world is not going to step backwards as far as the North German plain is concerned.

So, Europe has to look forwards, with or without NATO. It's not wrong or scary or a mistake. It's inevitable and needs to involve Britain. We are a big player and posters should not feel so insecure as they seem to do

PS. My figures for 2020 are correct. Statistics schmatistics, as they don't say.
Click to expand...

I would like to think you are correct about Russia's westward-moving ambitions, but after consuming Ukraine as a main course, Estonia is looking like a tasty morsel for afters. Brussels can shout all it likes about Putin's potential encroachment into the EU but can't do anything about it without relying on NATO. Setting up a small EU army isn't going to deter Russia. However, NATO is strong enough to halt any such aggression. For that reason alone, I don't believe there should be any dilution of NATO's strength in Europe at this crucial time, particularly as the EU initiative looks increasingly like Macron's vanity project. I would certainly not want the UK to become part of this. Strange that nobody has commented on the point about Brussels' competence to lead UK armed forces.
 
Last edited:
Tangojoe said:
OK '66 I'm happy to debate this with you, since you seem always open to sensible discussion unlike the sneering and name calling that seems to be prevalent on this board. The figures I quoted in the O/P were the latest official Europa statistics for 2019 released on 27 August 2021. There are no official audited stats for 2020. The UK spent €46.9bn on defence which compared with €47.4bn for 24 EU countries apart from France €35.8bn, Germany €32.8bn and Italy €21.3bn.

With regard to the funding of an EU army, it would, in my opinion, be a perfect situation for China and Russia to be faced with a significantly weakened NATO.

NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg said "A strategic EU force would risk overstretching the scarce resources of NATO allies. Any attempt to weaken the bond between North America and Europe will not only weaken NATO, it will divide Europe. Any attempt to establish parallel structures will duplicate the command structure and weaken our joint capability to work together because with scarce resources we need to prevent duplication and overlapping efforts. It would be better for EU members to meet the pledge of 2% of GDP to defence spending" (Of the 27, only Estonia and Greece met this target last year)

So, do you believe that the UK should become involved in such an arrangement and weaken the already stretched resources of NATO, in what an Italian MP has described as "a pipe dream which will alienate both London and Washington"?
Click to expand...
1066 would be a more suitable username for him as he probably revels in reading about the Norman invasion.
 
Fat chance our soldiers will fight in a unified army with France when the twats won’t even buy our shell fish. 🇬🇧😂
 
Christ! Talk about xenophobia run riot on this thread, all the old digs about other European Countries perceived actions in the face of action compared to “our brave boys” - doubtless any person from any country offering their service to the military are a damn site braver than I’ve ever or will ever be!

Maybe Eu/Uk combined forces will fill the hole left by the Americans - who them gum eating over paid and over here lot - pull in their claws from the likes of Afghanistan.

Being part of it might secure more than a few jobs in this area that depend on European Partners to produce aircraft jointly, the French might even let us park our subs when Scotland eventually splits off.
 
Tangojoe said:
I would like to think you are correct about Russia's westward-moving ambitions, but after consuming Ukraine as a main course, Estonia is looking like a tasty morsel for afters. Brussels can shout all it likes about Putin's potential encroachment into the EU but can't do anything about it without relying on NATO. Setting up a small EU army isn't going to deter Russia. However, NATO is strong enough to halt any such aggression. For that reason alone, I don't believe there should be any dilution of NATO's strength in Europe at this crucial time, particularly as the EU initiative looks increasingly like Macron's vanity project. I would certainly not want the UK to become part of this. Strange that nobody has commented on the point about Brussels' competence to lead UK armed forces.
Click to expand...
Well, you make several small errors there Tango. There's no way it would be a small armed force - and not just an Army. Of course, it would dove tail with NATO for as long as NATO exists, meaning that an attack on one NATO country is an attack on them all. Then, with a united Europe behind them, the force against any aggressor would simply be massively compounded. The problem of Russian interference in the Ukraine is bad but only shows up Russia for the limited ambitions it had. It will not go further West and the Western allies know this. Putin knows that the West knows this. It"s called grandstanding.
Finally, Brussels is the Executive of the EU. Foreign policy lies with the Heads of State.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
. It is not in Russia's interests to move westwards. In fact, the whole emphasis in the past 45 years has seen them move eastwards and northwards (with the end of the USSR. Yes, Putin has dreams of a greater Russia and feels humiliated by the Gorbache
Click to expand...
Those in Ukraine might not entirely agree with you.
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
Can’t disagree with any of that. 👍

But If the balloon ever did go up and I were 30 years younger and got called up I’d make sure I’d be behind the French element that’s for sure.
Click to expand...

Except its not a balloon, its a mushroom and we'd all be knackered
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Well, you make several small errors there Tango. There's no way it would be a small armed force - and not just an Army. Of course, it would dove tail with NATO for as long as NATO exists, meaning that an attack on one NATO country is an attack on them all. Then, with a united Europe behind them, the force against any aggressor would simply be massively compounded. The problem of Russian interference in the Ukraine is bad but only shows up Russia for the limited ambitions it had. It will not go further West and the Western allies know this. Putin knows that the West knows this. It"s called grandstanding.
Finally, Brussels is the Executive of the EU. Foreign policy lies with the Heads of State.
Click to expand...

We know that the EU is talking of a unit of 20,000 troops initially, so it would be small, very small. And the "Russian Interference" in Ukraine is more than "bad but only shows up Russia for the limited ambitions it had". It's nothing less than an invasion and a very real threat of further movement west. The Russian army is already guilty of minor incursions along the Estonian border and of course at sea and in the air more widely. Finally, foreign policy might lie with heads of state, but that's not how armies work. There would be no picking and choosing deployment of the EU army by the UK.
 
Last edited:
Trammo said:
Yes but I'm sure you will learn to read someday 😜 Hopefully someone will read this out to you maybe the same person who typed your message for you. 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧😜
Click to expand...
I love all the flags. Are you one of those people who hang around Buck House stalking the Royals?
 
Tangojoe said:
We know that the EU is talking of a unit of 20,000 troops initially, so it would be small, very small. And the "Russian Interference" in Ukraine is more than "bad but only shows up Russia for the limited ambitions it had". It's nothing less than an invasion and a very real threat of further movement west. The Russian army is already guilty of minor incursions along the Estonian border and of course at sea and in the air more widely. Finally, foreign policy might lie with heads of state, but that's not how armies work. There would be no picking and choosing deployment of the EU army by the UK.
Click to expand...
You're thinking is somewhat micro Tangojoe. Yes, there are incursions but Putin's emphasis is on playing the hardman to a domestic audience.
The number of troops is, in the short term, not the issue. It's all about coordinating national interests within Europe and aligning with NATO. It would be as well not to overthink these early manoeuvers.
 
BWseasider said:
At the moment our destiny when it comes to conflict/war is “What is the US doing?”. Which we seemingly have very little influence over, when we want something and the Americans tell us to fuck off it’s the end of the matter.

With the US increasingly becoming less invested in Europe and more focussed on domestic issues and Asia, it’s time European countries started to build their own foreign policy that isn’t wholly dependent on US muscle, because European and US aims aren’t always the same.

Europe has been safely under the umbrella of US protection since the end of WW2, and that will not last forever, at some point Europe will have to look out for itself, or it might as well be a client state of the US.

The European army is the first step in that direction, whether or not the UK should join should rest on two questions 1) Does the EU foreign policy better align with UK foreign policy? 2) Are we going to be more influential and successful in forming the EU's foreign policy vs the US?

I’d wager on the second question the answer is probably yes, on the first I have no clue.

There’s little the UK can feasibly do solely on its own, so we’ll be working with partners in one way or another. It all comes down to which partners are easier to work with and if our aims align.
Click to expand...
That's far too sensible and thoughtful a post, you should be ashamed. Rants only, here 👏
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Well, you make several small errors there Tango.
Click to expand...
1966_and_all_that said:
You're thinking is somewhat micro Tangojoe. Yes, there are incursions but Putin's emphasis is on playing the hardman to a domestic audience.
The number of troops is, in the short term, not the issue. It's all about coordinating national interests within Europe and aligning with NATO. It would be as well not to overthink these early manoeuvers.
Click to expand...

OK '66 let's see if you can manage a response that doesn't commence with an insult.

Firstly, Putin doesn't need to play to a domestic audience. He's already decided he will rule his country for as long as he likes and nobody is going to challenge him in the foreseeable future No, he's more interested in expanding Russia's control over a much wider area.

The EU forces issue is not about coordinating national interests within Europe and aligning with NATO. It's primarily about satisfying the ambitions of the French President and removing the EU's stigma of being an organisation of 450m that is effectively defenceless. To achieve that, it is necessary for the UK to play an integral role because it has the ability to do so, is committed to higher military expenditure than any EU country and is fearsome as an enemy.

However, the UK's involvement is never ever going to happen for the reasons I have previously outlined, in particular that it is committed to NATO membership and really has nothing to gain from being part of an EU military force. Without the UK, the EU has not got a cat in hell's chance of defending itself against Russia or China and that is the reason France and Germany are so desperate to have the UK on board for this, and only this, project.
 
Tangojoe said:
OK '66 let's see if you can manage a response that doesn't commence with an insult.

Firstly, Putin doesn't need to play to a domestic audience. He's already decided he will rule his country for as long as he likes and nobody is going to challenge him in the foreseeable future No, he's more interested in expanding Russia's control over a much wider area.

The EU forces issue is not about coordinating national interests within Europe and aligning with NATO. It's primarily about satisfying the ambitions of the French President and removing the EU's stigma of being an organisation of 450m that is effectively defenceless. To achieve that, it is necessary for the UK to play an integral role because it has the ability to do so, is committed to higher military expenditure than any EU country and is fearsome as an enemy.

However, the UK's involvement is never ever going to happen for the reasons I have previously outlined, in particular that it is committed to NATO membership and really has nothing to gain from being part of an EU military force. Without the UK, the EU has not got a cat in hell's chance of defending itself against Russia or China and that is the reason France and Germany are so desperate to have the UK on board for this, and only this, project.
Click to expand...
I haven't started posts replying to you with any insults. Criticisms yes, insults no. As for the rest, you've made your position clear and I have done likewise.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
invasion of the georgian regions of Tskhinvali, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia, which they were increasing on a weekly basis.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed but, in my defence (and call me Mr Picky), I was treating issues around the Black and Caspian Seas' former Soviet states as Southern encroachment. My thinking on western expansion revolves around moves into the Balkans, Baltic and other former Iron Curtain countries. It's that sort of Soviet imperialism that, to my mind, is a thing of the past.
That's not to say Russian interference in Georgia, Usbekistan et al is irrelevant. It's just not something that NATO or a European defence force would be involved in.
 
Tangojoe said:
OK '66 let's see if you can manage a response that doesn't commence with an insult.

Firstly, Putin doesn't need to play to a domestic audience. He's already decided he will rule his country for as long as he likes and nobody is going to challenge him in the foreseeable future No, he's more interested in expanding Russia's control over a much wider area.

The EU forces issue is not about coordinating national interests within Europe and aligning with NATO. It's primarily about satisfying the ambitions of the French President and removing the EU's stigma of being an organisation of 450m that is effectively defenceless. To achieve that, it is necessary for the UK to play an integral role because it has the ability to do so, is committed to higher military expenditure than any EU country and is fearsome as an enemy.

However, the UK's involvement is never ever going to happen for the reasons I have previously outlined, in particular that it is committed to NATO membership and really has nothing to gain from being part of an EU military force. Without the UK, the EU has not got a cat in hell's chance of defending itself against Russia or China and that is the reason France and Germany are so desperate to have the UK on board for this, and only this, project.
Click to expand...
on your first point, Putin definitley needs to play to his domestic audience. For all the wealth in russia the average salary is still only around the $400 per month range. in the regions its significantly lower. There is a huge amount of opposition which is why he has to arrest anyone who opposes him, that means that any business with any real size has to be Putin friendly in order to grow. If they are Putin friendly than they are likely to have issues with any international relationships with the US and the EU. The continued occupation of Ukraine and Georgia is a diversion to the Russian nationalists as they see their wages and standards of living drop, and the russian economy is going backwards, there are also signifant rumblings in Russia about corruption, particularly around Putin himself, and particularly in the regions where the poorest people are and his traditional support base was. Putin is under a great deal of pressure because of the economic problems, so he has to spend a significant amount of energy repressing that pressure, leds them down a spiral of ignoring wider economic and social problems and play-acting the strong man.

I'd agree with your second point about an EU army being a largely french derived idea for additional internation french influence, my own opinion is that it is the first step towards a federalised Europe which no-one wants outside of a few EU bureaucrats and french politicians want (and I'm avidly pro europe).

the UK's involvement might be easier to justify politically than non-involvement, particularly if the US decides that the UN has had its day, I think a conservative government could quite easily sell the idea to a proportion of the English population if it was stated it would be used to control immigration for example.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Yes indeed but, in my defence (and call me Mr Picky), I was treating issues around the Black and Caspian Seas' former Soviet states as Southern encroachment. My thinking on western expansion revolves around moves into the Balkans, Baltic and other former Iron Curtain countries. It's that sort of Soviet imperialism that, to my mind, is a thing of the past.
That's not to say Russian interference in Georgia, Usbekistan et al is irrelevant. It's just not something that NATO or a European defence force would be involved in.
Click to expand...
fair enough on the southern aspect. but Georgia is firmly allied to NATO, but i dont think its a full member yet, and from what i understand there it wont get full membership until the issues around its occupied territories are resolved. Russian interference in those areas will delay wider NATO involvement.

A previous administration there allied the country to the EU, adopting EU standards, as a means to firstly securing EU inward investment, and secondly to literally cut it off from Russian political influence, the following administration took a more liberal attitude to Russia, and over the last 8 or nine years that political influence has been felt. The likes of Georgia, Ukraine, and the rest of the Baltic states are the first line of defence politically against russian influence.

at the moment the EU is incredibly powerful economically, but it has nothing to back that economic power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top