EU need to remove its dependence on US military power

fanboi

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
3,636
Sweden
They need to start centralising all member nations military to a one super power where there is a clear chain of command.

All this due to how the world is developing where the EU need to be able to put pressure and actual military operations when needed since the US can’t be trusted to elect another president in the future that wrecks even more havoc.

Sure there are initiatives to harmonise military tech and machines but more need to be done.

I am very much against military build up, but as mentioned above plus so much disturbing development all around the EU border.
 

Zojirushi

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,492
The European Union is a Union in pretty much no sense of the word. It's not gonna happen. EU will never be some sort of counter weight in terms of power to USA or China.
 

Herne

Member
Dec 10, 2017
1,598
In order to do this they'll need to organise together, with much tighter integration and standardization of equipment. So many are afraid of the "federal superstate" they see the EU becoming though so I'm not sure how much opposition that kind of movement will see.

At the very least, standardization of equipment and vehicles throughout all the armed forces will be a massive help, rather than relying on individual contracts.
 

Matt

The Terror that Flaps in the Night
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
2,812
It would be a massive change for EU nations, and require a level of military spending none of them have really had to pay out for 70 years.

It's not a bad idea, but I struggle to think there would be enough political support for that level of commitment, at least until there is a massive direct threat to Europe that the US proves itself unwilling to counter.
 

Relic

Member
Oct 28, 2017
150
Trump is revealing a lot of flaws in post-WW2 beliefs. America's long-held desire for world dominance no longer works if they fuck up literally one time, in elections held every four years. International reliance on the US is a bad call even if Trump never happened. The US likes being in everyone's business, and other countries get cheap military support, but then someone like Trump comes in and tries to play hardball with stuff we give out of the "goodness of our hearts" (really the unspoken power that global influence gives you).

On the flipside, US isolationism can also lead to terrible outcomes, and clearly has been in the last 10 years. We've done Iraqs, sure, but we also rebuilt Western Europe after we destroyed it. Now China is doing the same thing and putting in Chinese spy devices instead of American ones.
 

Kirblar

Member
Oct 25, 2017
26,704
This needs to happen.

Aside from the obvious political issues, Matt's point about the budgetary issues due to the relative free-rider issue is very valid, unfortunately.
 

SG-17

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,271
Who controls France's nukes in this hypothetical situation?
 

poklane

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,925
the Netherlands
How would a single united EU army even work?
Lets say we have a single united EU army and whoever is in charge decides to go to war, but a handful of EU member states oppose, then what? Wanna send their soldiers anyway? That's a great way to ensure EU support in those countries will nosedive. Pull those soldiers out? Just means you never know what the EU army is worth as countries can pull out their support at any time.
 

Maintenance

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,706
Oct 28, 2017
643
Dublin
It could be done whereby half of every country’s troops are controlled by the state army and half by the EU army (like a rotation) to avoid arguments between member states not to send troops, but ultimately the entire budget would have to be controlled by the EU in order to harmonise stock and maximise efficiency.

There have already been steps taken to make recently to help prevent duplication and make EU more efficient. I think the lack of efficiency and coordination makes the EU very underpowered at the moment. I don’t believe much of a budget increase is necessary. I think that if everything was combined and harmonised, which efficiency maximised, the EU would be a huge military power. Second to the US of course.
 

Jroc

Member
Jun 9, 2018
977
The EU would have to become a country first.

Standardization makes sense, but NATO already does that to a certain extent. If Europe wants to grow an international spine then they're going to have to get themselves off of Russian gas first. The EU can't even provide consistent support to Ukraine, I can only imagine the head butting that would happen if they tried to do an official EU military deployment somewhere.
 

Pokiehl

Member
Oct 29, 2017
502
There will some level of military build up for sure, but appeasement of Russia is more likely. Germany doesn't seem to care too much about eastern Europe. Nord Stream 2 pretty much confirms this.
 

CJSeven

Member
Oct 30, 2018
18
I cannot believe I'm about to post something that aligns with something that spewed out of Trump's rotten mouth, but one of his big bitching points is that European NATO members need to up their military spending
 

Matt

The Terror that Flaps in the Night
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
2,812
It could be done whereby half of every country’s troops are controlled by the state army and half by the EU army (like a rotation) to avoid arguments between member states not to send troops, but ultimately the entire budget would have to be controlled by the EU in order to harmonise stock and maximise efficiency.

There have already been steps taken to make recently to help prevent duplication and make EU more efficient. I think the lack of efficiency and coordination makes the EU very underpowered at the moment. I don’t believe much of a budget increase is necessary. I think that if everything was combined and harmonised, which efficiency maximised, the EU would be a huge military power. Second to the US of course.
There is no way the EU can replace what the US military provides without a massive increase in spending. For example, Europe right now has almost no ability to project power beyond their borders without US help.
 

DrewFu

Banned
Apr 19, 2018
6,329
That makes no sense for them to do that. The EU largely cares about being protected. The US gives them that protection. Beyond that, there is already basic standardization through NATO. If EU nations want to start upping their military budgets, great, but there is zero point in them forming an EU military.

And bottom line, the EU enjoys being able to spend basically nothing on their militaries.
 
Last edited:

jfkgoblue

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,361
Having a well-run and strong military is very expensive and relying on the US to provide most the military support has allowed the various EU members to greatly expand various social programs. I just don’t see how cutting back on these services will go over well on the local population.
 

TheDoctor

Member
Oct 27, 2017
425
A European army would be a terrible idea.

Building up a powerful, well-equipped army will take decades and cost billions of Euro. Let's not be naive and think that you can take 27 different armies and easily merge them all into one. Military spending has been neglected for far too long. That's how you end up with Germans soldiers using broomsticks as weapons and Dutch soldiers yelling 'Bang Bang' during training exercises. These countries aren't hitting their NATO spending targets as we speak.

Then there's the case of who will be in control of said army. Who will decide when troops are being deployed into conflict zones? I for one don't want our men and women intervening on the streets of Catalonia (eg). We already saw how one member state handled that situation and the EU's response to it.
 
Last edited:

DrewFu

Banned
Apr 19, 2018
6,329
Having a well-run and strong military is very expensive and relying on the US to provide most the military support has allowed the various EU members to greatly expand various social programs. I just don’t see how cutting back on these services will go over well on the local population.
This. The US effectively being the EU's military has allowed the EU to be what it is. They ain't changing that.
 

jelly

Member
Oct 26, 2017
10,611
Aren't they already starting to do this to some extent?
What they want to do is reduce procurement overlapping so spending can be reduced which is a good idea but the media likes to dress it up as EU Army taking over!

An army is any sense like a sole country is impossible for many reasons already mentioned and as for NATO spending how does that even work, not everyone has a navy or Air Force so what do they spend it on, a million tanks! It's always been buy US stuff and not the actual percentage. Can you imagine if an EU military was actually a thing that was solely EU goods, America would never let that happen.
 

DrewFu

Banned
Apr 19, 2018
6,329
A European army would be a terrible idea.

Building up a powerful, well-equipped army will take decades and cost billions of Euro. Let's not be naive and think that you can take 27 different armies and easily merge them all into one. Military spending has been neglected for far too time. That's how you end up with Germans soldiers using broomsticks as weapons and Dutch soldiers yelling 'Bang Bang' during training exercises. These countries aren't hitting their NATO spending targets as we speak.

Then there's the case of who will be in control of said army. Who will decide when troops are being deployed into conlict zones? I for one don't want our men and women intervening on the streets of Catalonia (eg). We already saw how one member state handled that situation and the EU's response.
lol Exactly. Most of NATO already is struggling to even get close to the spending target. EU countries aren't going to want to spend 2-3x (or more for smaller countries) of what they already are paying.

Germany has gotten so damn cheap militarily, they barely even participate in major NATO exercises - and they can get away with it because there are almost 40k US troops there. Something tells me they'd like to continue to spend their money elsewhere.

Factor in the power struggles that would erupt within the EU, and the whole thing would be a disaster.
 
Last edited:

electricblue

Member
Oct 27, 2017
889
The EU would have to become a country first.

Standardization makes sense, but NATO already does that to a certain extent. If Europe wants to grow an international spine then they're going to have to get themselves off of Russian gas first. The EU can't even provide consistent support to Ukraine, I can only imagine the head butting that would happen if they tried to do an official EU military deployment somewhere.
agree, can’t do anything without energy independence. Not to mention that dependance fuels many of these autocratic regimes which are the reason you’d need a military in the first place
 

MrCheezball

Member
Aug 3, 2018
311
Totally good with that. Halve the military budget and throw it towards healthcare or something usedul.
 

sapien85

Member
Nov 8, 2017
2,989
It should happen but won't. EU could be a superpower but doesn't want the responsibility of it and cost. So they're stuck with the US and appeasing Russia.
 
Oct 27, 2017
12,534
Seattle
They need to start centralising all member nations military to a one super power where there is a clear chain of command.

All this due to how the world is developing where the EU need to be able to put pressure and actual military operations when needed since the US can’t be trusted to elect another president in the future that wrecks even more havoc.

Sure there are initiatives to harmonise military tech and machines but more need to be done.

I am very much against military build up, but as mentioned above plus so much disturbing development all around the EU border.
Like an EU army? That would require many countries to significantly up their military spending/contributions. I know many americans would approve of this, not sure how many euros would want the massive increase in military budgets though.
 

DrewFu

Banned
Apr 19, 2018
6,329
Totally good with that. Halve the military budget and throw it towards healthcare or something usedul.
Wut? The cost of this would force military budgets in the EU to skyrocket by multiples. A major reason why the EU can afford their social programs is because they can have basically no military budget.
 
Dec 24, 2017
1,814
I’m guessing putting together the package for force projection like a US Naval Carrier Battle Group is gonna break a lot of piggy banks.

However, probably not necessary if the focus is on defense only.
 

Matt

The Terror that Flaps in the Night
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
2,812
I’m guessing putting together the package for force projection like a US Naval Carrier Battle Group is gonna break a lot of piggy banks.

However, probably not necessary if the focus is on defense only.
Europe can’t untangle its military relationship with the US and fail to create the ability to independently project power. The world is far too interconnected for the EU to focus only on defending the continent, they would be strangled by their enemies.
 

TiC

Member
Jul 12, 2019
99
You act as if the current situation is hurting the EU. By having little military costs, they are able to fund a better quality of life for their people.
The U.S. is subsidizing their lifestyles.
 

Tracygill

Member
Nov 2, 2017
1,556
The Left
The only other entity that spends more on the military than the EU 28 is the United States. An EU army? To do what? More effectively murder climate refugees?
 

PurpleCopper

Banned
Oct 5, 2019
50
There's no way the EU is gonna wean off US protection. The American military umbrella allows Europe to free-ride the situation while only paying a pittance. Come to think of it, I was surprised to hear that the USA also subsidizes European healthcare.