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

Isleifson

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
3,675
Lorraine tudesque
I agree very much with that, European history would have followed an entirely different corse if had not been for the calculating genius of Bismarck, or the cancer that killed Wilhelm's father, or Wilhelm's own idiosyncrasies (which followed in turn to an important extent from the circumstances of his birth that caused him to have a withered arm). One can never overestimate, in my view, the part that accidents and contingencies play in history, and the the undoubted existence of 'great men' who force history along a path that it would not otherwise have taken belongs among those contingencies.[/QUOTE


An good book about all this

The Shortest History of Germany review – probing an enigma at the heart of Europe
 

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,184
Londinium
Wrong. The EU is merely what the member states want it to be. Nothing more.

Wrong again. The EU doesn't have such powers. The EU only has powers which the member states have explicitly given to it - it simply doesn't have those wider powers which you described. The whole agreement comes directly from the approval of the member states, the EU can not decide on the matter by itself, the member states need to do so. This seems rather difficult concept for you to grasp. The current EU 'HQ' is there just for planning training missions. By existing plans it might be possible for it to control a deployment of an European battlegroup by 2020 (i.e. 2 500 men) but it doesn't have such capability as of yet. So it really is just planning & other paper pushing HQ stuff what it does. European Union Military Staff - Wikipedia

No. The Eurocorps is explicitly outside of the EU control. Neither can the EU control the military forces of its member states. Not politically or otherwise. Again similar system to NATO in fact. Forces of the NATO member states are not subject to NATO control - what i mean by this is that they can act outside of NATO as well.

It is only the one organ that is completely under control of the member states. And per its own rules it can not make decisions such as the utilization of the EU forces without unanimity from the member states. Which means that every single EU member state has full veto right. So trying to depict that as if the EU (i.e. the commission, the 'faceless' bureaucrats) could decide anything with regards to that is folly - only the member states can, and even they if and only if they are able to reach consensus without any dissenting voices.

Except in this case any of the 'vassals' can simply say 'no' and that would end the whole show. Nothing can happen unless the 'vassals' all agree on it - or at very least none of them opposes it. So there really are no parallels to the medieval example you posted.
Which specific powers have I described that the EU doesn’t have over the Battlegroup?

I never said the EU controls forces of its *member states*, don’t put words in my mouth. I’m saying the EU has an army and the EU central authority decides how to deploy these forces, please refer to my previous links.

The council decides if the battle group is deployed, not the EU as a whole, as per previous post.

What happened if a EU member state, says no. Do you have an example? If not, then my comparison holds as your counter point has no supporting evidence. All speculative on your part.

As you mention the Euro Cops, worth picking up that you’re about to encounter some classic EU plausible deniability

The European Corps is presently not established at the EU level (referred to as the Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP); it is for instance not a project of the Permanent Structured Cooperation(PESCO) of the CSDP. The European Corps and its assets may however contribute in the implementation of the CSDP, when made available as a multinational force in accordance with article 42.3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).

Eurocorps - Wikipedia

The Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) is the European Union's (EU) course of action in the fields of defence and crisis management, and a main component of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).

Common Security and Defence Policy - Wikipedia

I.E – the EU military arm of its diplomatic services…

FYI, here is a list of active military campaigns the Euro Corps have participated in. Perhaps these are all “training exercises” lol

  1. Participated in peacekeeping missions in Bosnia
  2. Led KFOR III in Kosovo from 18 April 2000 to October 2000
  3. Led the ISAF6 Force in Afghanistan from 9 August 2004 to 11 February 2005.[18]
  4. From 1 July 2006, to 10 January 2007, the headquarters of the corps was the land component stand by element of the NATO Response Force 7.
  5. From 1 July 2010 to 10 January 2011, the headquarters of the corps was the land component stand by element of the NATO Response Force 15 (NRF 15).
  6. In 2012, the corps has deployed to ISAF in Afghanistan.
  7. In the second semester the Eurocorps is supporting Germany with 57 soldiers in the EU mission EUTM Mal
Eurocorps - Wikipedia

Here is the EU assigning a budget to it’s military, just like a state would: Together with the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence and Permanent Structured Cooperation it forms a new comprehensive defence package for the EU.

European Defence Fund - Wikipedia


For your “member states have given permission” argument to hold, first we have to get pass the fact that the EU is in itself a decision making entity, it has the power to create laws and pass these, then instruct members to adopt these into their statue. Furthermore, if a member state goes against a decision, it is subject to the EU authority. Moreover, the EU central authority control the economies of certain member states.

If you weren’t aware, the EU has an army, under the control of the EU’s power, alongside the EU’s control of economic and political control of member states, plus an independent diplomatic service. Can’t have a country without these I guess, which province are you from out of interest?
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
13,486
Europix
Which specific powers have I described that the EU doesn’t have over the Battlegroup?

I never said the EU controls forces of its *member states*, don’t put words in my mouth. I’m saying the EU has an army and the EU central authority decides how to deploy these forces, please refer to my previous links.

The council decides if the battle group is deployed, not the EU as a whole, as per previous post.

What happened if a EU member state, says no. Do you have an example? If not, then my comparison holds as your counter point has no supporting evidence. All speculative on your part.

As you mention the Euro Cops, worth picking up that you’re about to encounter some classic EU plausible deniability

The European Corps is presently not established at the EU level (referred to as the Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP); it is for instance not a project of the Permanent Structured Cooperation(PESCO) of the CSDP. The European Corps and its assets may however contribute in the implementation of the CSDP, when made available as a multinational force in accordance with article 42.3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).

Eurocorps - Wikipedia

The Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) is the European Union's (EU) course of action in the fields of defence and crisis management, and a main component of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).

Common Security and Defence Policy - Wikipedia

I.E – the EU military arm of its diplomatic services…

FYI, here is a list of active military campaigns the Euro Corps have participated in. Perhaps these are all “training exercises” lol

  1. Participated in peacekeeping missions in Bosnia
  2. Led KFOR III in Kosovo from 18 April 2000 to October 2000
  3. Led the ISAF6 Force in Afghanistan from 9 August 2004 to 11 February 2005.[18]
  4. From 1 July 2006, to 10 January 2007, the headquarters of the corps was the land component stand by element of the NATO Response Force 7.
  5. From 1 July 2010 to 10 January 2011, the headquarters of the corps was the land component stand by element of the NATO Response Force 15 (NRF 15).
  6. In 2012, the corps has deployed to ISAF in Afghanistan.
  7. In the second semester the Eurocorps is supporting Germany with 57 soldiers in the EU mission EUTM Mal
Eurocorps - Wikipedia

Here is the EU assigning a budget to it’s military, just like a state would: Together with the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence and Permanent Structured Cooperation it forms a new comprehensive defence package for the EU.

European Defence Fund - Wikipedia


For your “member states have given permission” argument to hold, first we have to get pass the fact that the EU is in itself a decision making entity, it has the power to create laws and pass these, then instruct members to adopt these into their statue. Furthermore, if a member state goes against a decision, it is subject to the EU authority. Moreover, the EU central authority control the economies of certain member states.

If you weren’t aware, the EU has an army, under the control of the EU’s power, alongside the EU’s control of economic and political control of member states, plus an independent diplomatic service. Can’t have a country without these I guess, which province are you from out of interest?

My friend, I will not go further than just Your source: Eurocorps - Wikipedia.

I quote:

"... The European Corps (Eurocorps) is an intergovernmental military corps of approximately 1,000 soldiers stationed in Strasbourg, Alsace, France. ... "

"... The European Corps is presently not established at the EU level (referred to as the Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP); it is for instance not a project of the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) of the CSDP. The European Corps and its assets may however contribute in the implementation of the CSDP, when made available as a multinational force in accordance with article 42.3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). ..."

(end of quotes)
 
Last edited:

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,654
The council decides if the battle group is deployed, not the EU as a whole, as per previous post.
Which also negates most of what you claimed. If you do not understand why or how that happens then you really should read more on how the EU structures work instead of trying to guess how they work.
What happened if a EU member state, says no. Do you have an example? If not, then my comparison holds as your counter point has no supporting evidence. All speculative on your part.
Your comparison really does not. In matter related to foreign issues the system works on unanimity. So every single country has full veto rights. The countries might be able to act outside of the EU 'aegis' kinda like the 'Coalition of the Willing' by the USA. But the EU itself could not be involved if just a single country was opposed to taking action.
The European Corps is presently not established at the EU level (referred to as the Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP); it is for instance not a project of the Permanent Structured Cooperation(PESCO) of the CSDP. The European Corps and its assets may however contribute in the implementation of the CSDP, when made available as a multinational force in accordance with article 42.3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).
Yes. When the countries forming the Eurocorps explicitly make it available as a multinational force. Again it is up to the forming countries. And when it is used in accordance of the EU rules it is then also subject to veto right from every single member state instead of just to the automatic veto rights from all the Eurocorps contributing countries.
FYI, here is a list of active military campaigns the Euro Corps have participated in. Perhaps these are all “training exercises” lol

  1. Participated in peacekeeping missions in Bosnia
  2. Led KFOR III in Kosovo from 18 April 2000 to October 2000
  3. Led the ISAF6 Force in Afghanistan from 9 August 2004 to 11 February 2005.[18]
  4. From 1 July 2006, to 10 January 2007, the headquarters of the corps was the land component stand by element of the NATO Response Force 7.
  5. From 1 July 2010 to 10 January 2011, the headquarters of the corps was the land component stand by element of the NATO Response Force 15 (NRF 15).
  6. In 2012, the corps has deployed to ISAF in Afghanistan.
  7. In the second semester the Eurocorps is supporting Germany with 57 soldiers in the EU mission EUTM Mal
Now you just showing that you didn't understand the article you yourself linked here. European military HQ is not controlling the Eurocorps. The Eurocorps contributing countries are. So you are quite magnificently mixing two completely separate entities and claiming something from that mess.
For your “member states have given permission” argument to hold, first we have to get pass the fact that the EU is in itself a decision making entity, it has the power to create laws and pass these, then instruct members to adopt these into their statue. Furthermore, if a member state goes against a decision, it is subject to the EU authority. Moreover, the EU central authority control the economies of certain member states.
Almost but not quite. What you are forgetting is that in matters such as this - and also in all legal matters trying to change thins at this level - the EU Council (which is to say the member states) needs to decide unanimously on the matter, it is after all the 'upper house' of the EU legislature. So in other words every single member state still has full veto rights even on the laws you referred to. So the EU can not pass such laws without all of the EU member states approving them nor can it force the member states to adopt such (i.e. to drop the veto). So you are once again showing rather remarkable lack of understanding of how the EU works.
If you weren’t aware, the EU has an army, under the control of the EU’s power, alongside the EU’s control of economic and political control of member states, plus an independent diplomatic service. Can’t have a country without these I guess, which province are you from out of interest?
No. The EU still doesn't have an army. The EU states have their own armies. The EU may, if the member states unanimously agree, to act as an overall 'aegis' (so to speak) for operations. That is what the 'battle groups' are about. The EU still can not order the 'army' to do a thing unless the member states unanimously agree on it. And no, the EU still only doing what the member states themselves have mandated it to do. It can not do anything beyond that. It doesn't have political control of its member states either like the veto right quite well shows. Nor does it actually have control of economies either like the Greece crisis quite well demonstrates.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
13,486
Europix
... which province are you from out of interest?
Namurois.

(trivia: province's totem is the snail. Some say it's linked to the proverbial fast thinking of the inhabitants ... not joking ;) )

If you weren’t aware, the EU has an army, under the control of the EU’s power, alongside the EU’s control of economic and political control of member states, plus an independent diplomatic service. Can’t have a country without these I guess ...
Let's see how this "EU army" and the rest is looking.

Simplest way would be to change the subject: let's put "US" instead of "EU", "US army" instead of "EU army". What you say?

So:

"... In May 1993, Texas and California made UScorps available for “Petersberg” missions (crisis response operations) to the USA.

" ... At the USA Summit in Huston (3 and 4 June 1999), USA wished to have multistate forces prepared for crisis management in the future: the UScorps Framework states declared that UScorps would be available for use by the US. ... "

" .... UScorps is a unique multistate headquarters (other NATO Rapid Deployable Corps being only national, bi-national or tri-national). From the start as a Texan-Californian Corps, the doors were open for other states with the same rights as the founding states. Between 1993 and 1996, Minnesota, Utah and Washington joined the Headquarters.

"... Hawaii, Alabama, Delaware, Florida and Mexico are Associated States of UScorps. ... "

" ... All the decisions are taken on a unanimous base by the Framework States in the UScorps Common Committee. The participation of Associated States to any UScorps commitment is systematically submitted to the approbation of each given state's authorities. ... "

"....UScorps has a highly trained personnel and a truly multistate force, by 260 militaries from Texas, 220 from California, 125 from Minnesota, 165 from Utah, 2 from Washington, 220 from Hawaii, 2 from Alabama, 2 from Delaware, 2 from Florida and from Mexico ...


I can go on with the battlegroups if You want.

"... the initial ideas for specific US Battlegroups began at the US Council summit on 10–11 December 1999 in Philadelphia. The Council produced the Headline Goal 2003 and specified the need for a rapid response capability that states should provide in small forces at high readiness. ..."

" ... The following Texan-Florida summit in November of that year stated that, building on the experience of the operation, the USA should be able and willing to deploy forces within 15 days in response to a UN request ... "

" ... On 10 February 2004, Texas, Florida and California released a paper outlining the "Battlegroup concept". ... "

" ... From 1 January 2005 the Battlegroups reached initial operational capacity: at least one Battlegroup was on standby every 6 months. Californian and Florida each had an operational Battlegroup for the first half of 2005, and Texas for the second half. In the first half of 2006, a Texan- Arkansas Battlegroup operated, and the Maine–Maryland Amphibious Battlegroup. In the second half of that year just one Battlegroup operated composed by Florida, California and Minnesota. ... "

"...Full operational capacity was reached on 1 January 2007, meaning the USA could undertake two Battlegroup sized operations concurrently, or deploy them simultaneously into the same field. The Battlegroups rotate every 6 months ... "


Some countries not states of USA, nor NATO members have participated into the Battlegroups, like Mexico, Canada, etc.



Is that what You call an army, is that the way a state's army is defined, is functioning? Is it how US (or UK, if You prefer) have its army formed and run?!?

To me, if that's the "army" of the EU, than hippie's dreams came true: flower power!

______
the parts in Italics come from Multinational in every sense - Eurocorps, Groupement tactique de l'Union européenne — Wikipédia, EU Battlegroup - Wikipedia (paraphrased quotes)
 
Last edited:

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,184
Londinium
Namurois.

(trivia: province's totem is the snail. Some say it's linked to the proverbial fast thinking of the inhabitants ... not joking ;) )
Your province is Belgium. Sorry to break this to you; your economy, politics, foreign service and soon military are not exclusively under the control of Belgium, rather these are either directly controlled or vetoed/supervised by the EU.

Let's see how this "EU army" and the rest is looking.

Simplest way would be to change the subject: let's put "US" instead of "EU", "US army" instead of "EU army". What you say?

So:

"... In May 1993, Texas and California made UScorps available for “Petersberg” missions (crisis response operations) to the USA.

" ... At the USA Summit in Huston (3 and 4 June 1999), USA wished to have multistate forces prepared for crisis management in the future: the UScorps Framework states declared that UScorps would be available for use by the US. ... "

" .... UScorps is a unique multistate headquarters (other NATO Rapid Deployable Corps being only national, bi-national or tri-national). From the start as a Texan-Californian Corps, the doors were open for other states with the same rights as the founding states. Between 1993 and 1996, Minnesota, Utah and Washington joined the Headquarters.

"... Hawaii, Alabama, Delaware, Florida and Mexico are Associated States of UScorps. ... "

" ... All the decisions are taken on a unanimous base by the Framework States in the UScorps Common Committee. The participation of Associated States to any UScorps commitment is systematically submitted to the approbation of each given state's authorities. ... "

"....UScorps has a highly trained personnel and a truly multistate force, by 260 militaries from Texas, 220 from California, 125 from Minnesota, 165 from Utah, 2 from Washington, 220 from Hawaii, 2 from Alabama, 2 from Delaware, 2 from Florida and from Mexico ...

I can go on with the battlegroups if You want.

"... the initial ideas for specific US Battlegroups began at the US Council summit on 10–11 December 1999 in Philadelphia. The Council produced the Headline Goal 2003 and specified the need for a rapid response capability that states should provide in small forces at high readiness. ..."

" ... The following Texan-Florida summit in November of that year stated that, building on the experience of the operation, the USA should be able and willing to deploy forces within 15 days in response to a UN request ... "

" ... On 10 February 2004, Texas, Florida and California released a paper outlining the "Battlegroup concept". ... "

" ... From 1 January 2005 the Battlegroups reached initial operational capacity: at least one Battlegroup was on standby every 6 months. Californian and Florida each had an operational Battlegroup for the first half of 2005, and Texas for the second half. In the first half of 2006, a Texan- Arkansas Battlegroup operated, and the Maine–Maryland Amphibious Battlegroup. In the second half of that year just one Battlegroup operated composed by Florida, California and Minnesota. ... "

"...Full operational capacity was reached on 1 January 2007, meaning the USA could undertake two Battlegroup sized operations concurrently, or deploy them simultaneously into the same field. The Battlegroups rotate every 6 months ... "

Some countries not states of USA, nor NATO members have participated into the Battlegroups, like Mexico, Canada, etc.



Is that what You call an army, is that the way a state's army is defined, is functioning? Is it how US (or UK, if You prefer) have its army formed and run?!?

To me, if that's the "army" of the EU, than hippie's dreams came true: flower power!

______
the parts in Italics come from Multinational in every sense - Eurocorps, Groupement tactique de l'Union européenne — Wikipédia, EU Battlegroup - Wikipedia (paraphrased quotes)
Let's stay focused on the EU, no need for anything approaching a strawman here. Can the EU not stand on it's own merits? I'm going to dismiss your post as it is not relevant to our current discussion regarding the EU, or what I had raised in my previous post.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
13,486
Europix
Your province is Belgium. Sorry to break this to you; your economy, politics, foreign service and soon military are not exclusively under the control of Belgium, rather these are either directly controlled or vetoed/supervised by the EU.
Nope, it isn't a province. Not for the moment.

As any small country, anywhere in the world, anytime in history, it's actual sovereignty is partial. As Your own country has a partial sovergnity for some time now. And no, it isn't linked to EU, but to what place has UK in today's world.

Wathever we like it or not, ATM, there are only three real sovereign countries in the world: US, PRC, RF.

Let's stay focused on the EU, no need for anything approaching a strawman here. Can the EU not stand on it's own merits? I'm going to dismiss your post as it is not relevant to our current discussion regarding the EU, or what I had raised in my previous post.
I was focused: I simply put it differently so to be clearer why Your strawman is one ;)

I/You can change "US" with "UK", "RF", "CH", any country. What I said remains true.
 

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,184
Londinium
Nope, it isn't a province. Not for the moment.

As any small country, anywhere in the world, anytime in history, it's actual sovereignty is partial. As Your own country has a partial sovergnity for some time now. And no, it isn't linked to EU, but to what place has UK in today's world.
Wow! Is this what gets taught or explained to the population via media outlets within your country?

The size of a nation has no effect on it’s legitimate right for sovereignty.

Wathever we like it or not, ATM, there are only three real sovereign countries in the world: US, PRC, RF. .
Again, this is such a disappointment to hear. I’m not exaggerating, I really am saddened to hear how willing you are to accept you have no sovereignty.

You have already given up the idea of Belgium. In your post you describe how sovereignty should not be expected for you.

My conclusion is pretty robust; you live in an EU province and derive your sovereignty from the EU rather than Belgium.

(And the worst part, Farage was right regarding the non-country of Belgium. If nothing else, please don’t let that smug….. be right!! )
was focused: I simply put it differently so to be clearer why Your strawman is one

I/You can change "US" with "UK", "RF", "CH", any country. What I said remains true.
So the EU is a nation, as per the US or RF? Or is there some grey area you are about to introduce, as is the EU forte, ref my previous posts regarding plausible deniability.
 

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,654
Wow! Is this what gets taught or explained to the population via media outlets within your country?

The size of a nation has no effect on it’s legitimate right for sovereignty.
It doesn't matter to the legitimate right but to the detail that the smaller nations tend to be more cognizant of the fact that there are limits to the sovereignty. Any foreign agreements reduce the freedom of the nation to act hence making its sovereignty only partial. Then again when viewed from the opposing angle it would be rather horrible if some country had absolute sovereignty since it would translate to others essentially as absolute tyranny from that state.
Again, this is such a disappointment to hear. I’m not exaggerating, I really am saddened to hear how willing you are to accept you have no sovereignty.
False supposition. No one was talking of the total lack of sovereignty, just that it is always - by necessity - partial. I would disagree with the claim that USA, PRC or RF would have full sovereignty, they don't. Their own international entanglements already limit their sovereignty - which is as it should be.
My conclusion is pretty robust; you live in an EU province and derive your sovereignty from the EU rather than Belgium.
Again your wild guess misses the mark. The EU does not have any provinces. It is a supranational union to which sovereign states can join. They can also leave if they so choose to do - as is the case of Brexit. That the British do not seem to like the consequences of that choice is a different matter but they have full right to leave. In fact there is some irony in that the EU can not force the UK to stay nor can it force the UK to leave either. The UK has to make up its mind on its own.
So the EU is a nation, as per the US or RF?
The EU is per definition a supranational union - feel free to read more on what it means: Supranational union - Wikipedia
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
13,486
Europix
So the EU is a nation, as per the US or RF? Or is there some grey area you are about to introduce, as is the EU forte, ref my previous posts regarding plausible deniability.
My point exactly: EU isn't a state, isn't a nation and it hasn't an army.

Pleased to see we agree on it.

_______
PS: Nigel Farage: "Belgium isn't even a country"
Guy Verhofstad: " We'll see that at the Cup"

And Nigel saw it. Twice. ;)

In other words: You're not something or nothing cause someone says so, but because You're able to do it or not.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions