Is it time to think international relations and security beyond NATO?

macon

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
3,877
Slovenia, EU
EU armies are joke. Only Brits are capable of any foreign intervention, probably also French with their Foreign legion but even they can't send more than a group of few battalions.

My state is in hands of extreme left which wishes to demolish army so army is underpaid and underequipped, meeting no standards and we are not paying even 1% of our gdp. I suppose Nato should kick us out.

Anyone wishing to occupy Slovenia may do it in a time of one working day because nobody will defend our corrupt immoral leftist state.
 

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,340
Londinium
EU doesn't "have" the battle groups, but EU countries contribute to it. If they want or not. The "EU army" consist of 1000 men under arms.
Classic EU tactic of plausible deniability and mis-infomation;
We have an army, but it's not an army as only 1,000 people LOL
We don't "have" battle groups, we set-up "battle groups" and some countries contribute to this "battle group" LOL

The forces are under the direct control of the Council of the European Union.
EU Battlegroup - Wikipedia

The EU has a military force, an army, but knowing that the EU controls your economy and has an army will make EUorpeans feel awkward, so they just lie :)


Please explain me what would be UK's capacity of military projection if London would have it's own army, financed by his own budget, following it's own defence policy, while Leeds would have it's own, Pembrokeshire his own, aso? How many carriers, combat hellis, long range missiles would have Staffordshire ?
Be very careful with the comparison you just made, you are very close to sounding like the EU is a sovereign entity in its own right - a nation state. If so, we are in agreement!
 
Last edited:

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,340
Londinium
EU armies are joke. Only Brits are capable of any foreign intervention, probably also French with their Foreign legion but even they can't send more than a group of few battalions.

My state is in hands of extreme left which wishes to demolish army so army is underpaid and underequipped, meeting no standards and we are not paying even 1% of our gdp. I suppose Nato should kick us out.

Anyone wishing to occupy Slovenia may do it in a time of one working day because nobody will defend our corrupt immoral leftist state.
IIRC every intervention/action etc by the French and British since WW2 has been with US logistical and/or intelligence support, if not with direct access to US Army/Air Force/ Navy assets in a supporting role.
 

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,687
Classic EU tactic of plausible deniability and mis-infomation;
We have an army, but it's not an army as only 1,000 people LOL
We don't "have" battle groups, we set-up "battle groups" and some countries contribute to this "battle group" LOL
The EU itself doesn't have any units at all. All forces belong to the member states themselves. At the EU level there exist pretty much just overall military planning and HQ elements - so not that different from NATO actually. The Eurocorps is subject to the unanimity of the countries contributing forces and not even part of the EU structures - though it is due to the contributing countries closely tied with it.
EU Battlegroup - Wikipedia

The EU has a military force, an army, but knowing that the EU controls your economy and has an army will make EUorpeans feel awkward, so they just lie
Let's go through what you linked to. The very article your link points to makes it explicitly clear that: "The forces are under the direct control of the Council of the European Union." Meaning they are not under EU control (i.e. EU Commission) but under the control of a council consisting of the governments of the EU member states should there be unanimity towards the use of those forces. Every single member state has a veto on that.
 
Mar 2016
758
Antalya
Gotta think a NATO w/o Turkey tho. NATO isn't serving Turkey's interest, at all. Not only they do not serve, but also arm separatist terrorist organizations such as PKK. Let me remind you that PKK is also considered a terrorist organization by a good portion of NATO countries and various umbrella organizations such as EU. West is being isolated from non-Christian allies. Good luck on your future endeavor against China and Russia.
 
Apr 2018
979
Upland, Sweden
LOL. And this is the problem. Member nations don't think they need to contribute because someone else will do it all for them. Defense welfare.



LOL. No, there are no requirements that member state militaries have the ability to transport themselves even across their own borders, let alone someone elses. You totes got me. I confess, because nobody specified in the treaty that x nation is allowed to have the most pathetic military force on the planet that they didn't violate the NATO charter.

But you know what was written down? The 2% goal. So when a country doesn't come close to meeting that, they're a problem. Especially when they're not broke, they're just blowing their money on other things, besides security. Those member states risk the rest of the organization's security, and if they cannot be removed, then the entire alliance should be rethought. No more defense welfare!
Isn't the situation between the US and NATO somewhat similar to that between Athens and the rest of the Delian league? While you guys are nice enough to not demand outright tribute from us (thanks for that) I think the mechanics involved are pretty much the same.

Big state forms a defensive alliance for relatively benign purposes, takes all responsibility, tells all other states that they can either "put up or shut up" (is this what we are witnessing right now?) and then... yeah, what then?

I mean, not to be a whiny b**** or anything, but @deaf tuner made a point ten or more pages back, how the US does not approve of combined European defense projects. This is in fact also true, if one looks at the historical track record. In the 50s for example, Sweden wanted to create a Nordic Defense Union (we also had our own nuclear weapons program) under a "neutral" banner, upholding our national interest. Naturally the US state department went in, convinced the Danes and Norwegians to join NATO and the Swedish government to tone down our explicit neutrality policy, with the implicit guarantee that we'd be put under the US security umbrella.

So it's not like the US doesn't get anything out of the current deal. You guys have a virtual intelligence and defense monopoly in the Western world because of the fact that the European countries don't "pay their share". While I sympathise that you as an american taxpayer might not want to subsidize us, the reality is that relative US power in the world is aided by Europe's lack of military power, not the reverse. The US is probably the nicest hegemon in history, but it is still a hegemon. Nobody, least of all European countries with histories of great power status like Germany and France like to be humiliated by being dependent on somebody else. If you aren't big and/ or confident enough to feel that you can pursue an autonomous policy, than a natural human reaction is to become a whiny little b*tch, obstructive as much as you can (the modern Germans are experts on this). It also helps if you adopt an ideology where you say that "military force is outdated and primitive" etc. etc. so you can fool yourself into believing that your weakness is actually a strength.

Not defending European parasitism on the US tax-payer here, I'm just putting it into perspective. The fact is that American support encourages European passivity as well, it is not just a one way process.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions