- 29,581
- Thailand
EU Army
- Thread starter W3H5
- 27 comments
- 1,303 views
Jawehawk
Premium
- 4,652
- Denmark
- Yohansen_92
The further militarization of the European Union only serves to further destabilize the world. It's no wonder that Russia feels uncomfortable, and acts accordingly, whenever the Union expands towards its borders. It's not just a moronic idea, it's outright dangerous.
- 3,792
Dont worry guys, it is just a dangerous fantasy by brexiters - Nick Clegg.
This has been said for around 15 years at least, EU have always denied it. This is dangerous for every euro country. Oh you dont want to flood Hungary with mass migration Orban? we'll better send in the army then, which you no longer have control of. EU are the enemy, not America, not Russia.
Jawehawk
Premium
- 4,652
- Denmark
- Yohansen_92
Not really. NATO's formation and development throughout the Cold War made perfect sense within the context within which it existed. EU's idea of sustaining peace in Europe via a joint European army was and is still a bad idea, made further pointless by the existence of the UN and NATO.
A sustainable peace needs everyone involved, hence The UN. One could perhaps argue that NATO has become an outdated and unnecessary entity. In any case, creating another massive military body is a surefire way to provoke a counter reaction.
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
What a curious discussion. EU is painted as a wonderful and benevolent association of nations for the benefit of all yet it can't be trusted not to turn on it's own citizenry if it funds an army for mutual self defence. Assuming this is the case, what does that make Macron who is now advocating for such a thing?
- 22,549
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
How so exactly? And who does it threaten to destabilize? From a neo-realist stand point it makes a lot of sense from the neo-liberalism and econ-liberalism stand point the EU was founded on it also makes pretty good sense. The only people I could see having issue with it would be those of the anti-globalism via constructivist and post-modernist stand point. The other factor is that Russia has claimed well before all this that they were being infringed upon yet, that doesn't stop them from making very brash and bold moves like in the Ukraine and other areas. The only other group I could see being threatened by this move is China, but since they're in a current flux of military stockpile and growth among other things, that really isn't much of a worry for them.
So realistically the only fears that I see are those who think this is just another step shy from plunging us into a Ghost in the Shell type International World.
- 36,520
- Scotland
- GTP_daan
But from a neo-matrix and anti-histamine stand point, what does any of that mean?
- 1,011
- UK
- the_greeze
- 16,435
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Those histamines are definitely nothing to sneeze at.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Since the end of the Cold War NATO has expanded to include the old Warsaw Pact countries of Central Europe and the Balkan republics, far beyond the fringes of the original mutual defense plan for Western Europe and North America. Article 5 requires Denmark, the UK, France etc. to militarily protect Greece, Turkey and any other member state which runs into trouble. Ukraine is knocking on the door of NATO membership, and they demand Crimea back. These are potentially big, expansive, expensive and open-ended obligations requiring great public and political resolve, truly vast outlays and many lives.
Recently the US has demanded NATO states to pay up or lose their military protection from the US. The US is contemplating leaving NATO. This will leave the rump NATO holding a very big bag of responsibilities with very little money and fire power to back it up.
Logically, Macron, no fool he, wants a back-up plan for the last-ditch defense of Western Europe.
Recently the US has demanded NATO states to pay up or lose their military protection from the US. The US is contemplating leaving NATO. This will leave the rump NATO holding a very big bag of responsibilities with very little money and fire power to back it up.
Logically, Macron, no fool he, wants a back-up plan for the last-ditch defense of Western Europe.
Jawehawk
Premium
- 4,652
- Denmark
- Yohansen_92
No offence, but all those fancy words give little actual depth to your post. I won't pretend to know what neo-liberalism is, but I fail to see what post modernism has to do with anything in this context. I can tell you that I am decidedly not a follower of post modernistic thought... Russia has acted out, in part, due to the EU's expansion. As already mentioned in this thread, the militarization of the EU is not a new thing, however, Macron's statement, as well as recent developments, only highlights the increasing emphasis on that aspect of the union.
The European Union has already been a contributing factor in two wars, the first being the early parts of the Yugoslav wars, Mainly in regards to Slovenia and Croatia's secession, and now in the civil war in Ukraine. Furthering the military aspect of the union, and adding it on top of the existing trade barrier (perhaps obstacle is a better term for it) that faces non EU members, is only going to incite more hostilities.
Sorry for the late reply. I've been preoccupied. I don't consider NATO's expansion post the Cold War a positive thing, mainly because it's main reason for existing ended with the Cold War. That said, both Greece and Turkey are old members, dating back to only a few years after the creation of NATO itself, so I'm not sure where you're going with that. Within the historical context, adding those two countries made perfect sense. Just as it made sense for Russia to establish a buffer between herself and the West. Neither part had any interest in invading the other for territorial gain. Rather it was a long running escalation driven by fear and misinterpretation of the other side. No different than now, where both the West and Russia stubbornly refuses to at least attempt to see things from a perspective different to their own. In Russia, whatever the West does it painted as aggressive behavior, and vice versa.
I might be misunderstanding you here, but why are military obligations across a single continent, which is what the European Union is moving towards, better than obligations spread across several continents, which is what NATO has been about? The difference in interests aren't significantly lessened even if we only include western Europe, and the European countries are not likely to be any more interested in meeting military spending quotas set by the EU, than they are under NATO. I don't buy into the assumption that the withdrawal of the US from NATO would cause the various European countries to suddenly start spending more on defense. There simply isn't public support behind such ideas. Personally, I would like to see Denmark reinvest in its military, as it is my belief that a country should be able to defend itself (in the early 2000's, Denmark adopted a new defense strategy which focused on maintaining a small expedition focused military, sacrificing many of the capacities needed for total defense in the process). A joint European army would not solve this issue. We'd still be overly reliant on others.
But I reiterate that creating these large military alliance in times of peace is counterproductive. It only fuels a counterreaction by those outside the alliance. The existence of the UN ought to have completely removed any perceived need for comprehensive military alliances in peace time...
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Looks like Merkel is jumping on the EU Army bandwagon now. Strangely she's saying it won't supplant NATO but wants to create a "European security council" to manage the two. How are you supposed to pay for another army when most of you can't even meet your 2% of GDP towards your NATO commitment? Something isn't adding up here, no pun intended.
- 22,549
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
I'm a little confused at how political philosophies or stances are "fancy words". Considering that a realist will see this build of power and centered orientation of the state as a good thing and the only thing that matters, thus carrying a big stick and willing to use it against those other powers that are also currently building up. If it weren't for the fact that Russia likes to put its nose and play KGB USSR in the modern realm I'd be more than happy to agree with you that their hostile actions are the creation of a hostile instigator. Yet they do it on their own just as much thus the victim hood you give them is unwarranted. Could the argument be made that they feel isolated despite their divisive actions, sure, but EU is doing something they feel will help protect the EU. Thus the Neo-liberalism idea is the cooperative function of nation-states working together (in simple terms) for the benefit of bolstering economy, trade, and military to where they eliminate in fighting against one another and become peaceful.
Now through that last political IR idea, I could see how that stance, gets echoed into this idea that if your not with the EU, you should watch out. However, the UK isn't and considering recent Irish talks among other things. I doubt they feel threatened by this. Same for Canada and the U.S. and several other nations not EU based. And it's interesting that you bring up those two wars considering the Ukraine civil war has all the similar actors vying for Ukraine as an overall nation, while Russia is only egging on their non nationalist Russian speaking Ukrainians with fear mongering. Though Right Sector doesn't quite help this situation in regards for a nationalized Ukraine. Again Russia doing things that are clearly decisive against once enemies during a begone era...yet they're the victim. Interesting.
In that same time how many political climates and wars has Russia been a factor of, I'll give you a hint. Far more than two. In reality I'd say the EU is setting up a military or wanting to get this going sooner than later, because it makes sense for long term EU contributors and has probably less probability of going to war than Russia or better yet the U.S. Might it be a part-time backdrop in something sure...but then this is a role many industrialized countries play that aren't the EU. Again I'm struggling to see the Boogieman or bad guy you seem to be suggesting exists in this.
- 4,551
- Moscow
- Rage_Racer_VOLK
- RageRacer48
Macron's a funny guy. Where's China, and where's Europe he wants to defend from it? 
On a cite note, there was already a time in history when a united European army fought against Russia and US. China was an ally back then, too.
On a cite note, there was already a time in history when a united European army fought against Russia and US. China was an ally back then, too.
You know... of course you can think whatever you want about evil Russia playing "KGB USSR" (while your own country is playing the world's police). But you guys like to see a mote in someone else's eye and not see a mote in your own. Apparently you don't like what Russia did in Ukraine, but do you know what happened shortly before the Crimean drama, in February 2014, in Kiev? Or Russia just suddenly ran insane and wanted more territories right now? Putin would be a complete schmuck if he hadn't responded at least like this. Much like Gorbachov who left East Germany in exchange for spoken guarantees of NATO's non-expansion to the east. Ha, ha, ha.
- 2,422
- Paris
- Milouse
- Milouse
Russia is constantly poking European countries by air to the North, flying in areas it shouldn't, and with submarines to the south. Right now Putin is that child who is softly but repeatedly touching an adult face with his finger, searching for the limit.
Also, "further militarization" may be not the best way to qualify what Macron is talking about.
Do you imply that US Federal institutions are the enemy of the US people?
EU has central courts, a parliament, a central bank, and even a Defence Agency. Germany and France, the backbone of the EU, are historically in favor of more European integration. The Brexit could be the removal of the handbrake on such matter, but i would be surprised if that army happens anytime soon.
You mention America as not the enemy, i guess in reference to Macron's quote. So at this point it should be mentioned that Macron was misquoted by Trump (the Trump quote is a mix of two sentences about two subjects, one is the army - where Macron cites US as getting a military independence from, not defending against -, the other is cybersecurity - where Macron cited US, China and Russia)
I heard about this before having heard of Macron himself. As for Macron, his campaign platform was even mentioning the extension of the France's "nuclear umbrella" to the rest of the EU, turning EU as a self-assumed nuclear deterrence territory.
I had a good laugh reading that Europe "can't be trusted not to turn on it's own citizenry".
The idea of an European army relies on a better usage and sharing of resources of the EU members, it doesn't add up.
...while it's just tourism
Last edited:
- 22,549
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Macron's a funny guy. Where's China, and where's Europe he wants to defend from it?
On a cite note, there was already a time in history when a united European army fought against Russia and US. China was an ally back then, too.
You know... of course you can think whatever you want about evil Russia playing "KGB USSR" (while your own country is playing the world's police). But you guys like to see a mote in someone else's eye and not see a mote in your own. Apparently you don't like what Russia did in Ukraine, but do you know what happened shortly before the Crimean drama, in February 2014, in Kiev? Or Russia just suddenly ran insane and wanted more territories right now? Putin would be a complete schmuck if he hadn't responded at least like this. Much like Gorbachov who left East Germany in exchange for spoken guarantees of NATO's non-expansion to the east. Ha, ha, ha.
Funny part is I don't defend my country for playing world police. So while you think it is of benefit to throw that shade you have for Murica my way. It's not of any benefit to you in the context of you who you decided to argue...me.
Now what I will do no matter who it is, is call a spade a spade and tow that line especially when the nation act like an ass on the political IR field and then wants to play victim and then has it's citizen believe the same line of innocence as well. Also yes I do know what happened and yes I've taken the time to see it from both sides, cause I really like history and being able to argue with people on either side who decide to entrench themselves in a perspective rather than be objective.
Similar threads
