Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Depository for off topic / political posts (NO brexit related posts please)

MedEwok wrote:

The EU is already the most successful entitiy at keeping the peace in Europe since the Roman Empire, by soft power alone.

Ahem, no. The EU / Europe was unable / unwilling to stop the war in Yugoslavia, it took the US to end that. In more recent history, the EU stood by as Russia annexed Crimea, not to speak of the non-intervention in Syria and Libya, the dramatic effects of which will be felt across Europe for generations. Admittedly, during the latter crises the US also had a president (Obama) who was totally uninterested in international affairs. However, that once again showed the total impotence of Europe. Without the US leading, the Europeans crawl under their duvets and hide.

“the non-intervention in Syria and Libya”

The mess in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, is mainly due to “our” intervention.
Compare Vietnam before and after the US pulled out.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

172driver wrote:

Ahem, no. The EU / Europe was unable / unwilling to stop the war in Yugoslavia, it took the US to end that. In more recent history, the EU stood by as Russia annexed Crimea, not to speak of the non-intervention in Syria and Libya, the dramatic effects of which will be felt across Europe for generations. Admittedly, during the latter crises the US also had a president (Obama) who was totally uninterested in international affairs. However, that once again showed the total impotence of Europe. Without the US leading, the Europeans crawl under their duvets and hide.

None of the conflicts you mention took place within the EU. I was mainly refering to the EU’s ability to keep peace between its members, which had been at each others throats for centuries before.

I do agree that the EU in the future needs to be able to maintain peace and stability beyond its borders as well. However, the US is at best ambigous about the prospect of a unified European foreign and security policy, because that could drastically reduce its own influence in this part of the world.

Low-hours pilot
EDVM Hildesheim, Germany

Alliances and partnerships are fine, but I don’t believe you will ever see a more integrated construct. Armed Forces are deployed and authorised in the name / democratic power of their Nation and no nation would ever cede control of that most basic conceptual right. Firstly it would compromise the ability to respond / manage individual nation interests and priorities; and it would fall apart at the first event where not all nations agreed an action or deployment. The Falklands War is a good example – imagine how that would have worked with an EU Armed Forces…. (nb the very fact people talk about an EU ‘Army’ shows fundamental issues from the start..)

Posts are personal views only.
Oxfordshire, United Kingdom

@MattL whilst I agree with most of what you say, I fundamentally disagree with your final statement in brackets.
Debating something shows no fundamental issues whatsoever and things do change with time.
For instance is Germany still hampered by both international and internal law from building an armed force?

France

Sorry @gallois – yes indeed, I was drawing attention to apparent focus on Army as opposed to a holistic Armed Forces including Navy and Air Force

Posts are personal views only.
Oxfordshire, United Kingdom

Fuji_Abound wrote:

i think there are many advantages.

(of an EU army).
There might be many advantages but to discuss these is just an academic exercise as there is one “minor” disadvantage: It’s simply not possible.

An army needs a Commander in Chief that is – at least as it is agreed today in all democratic and also most non democratic nations – a politician not a military employee.
EU, however, “unfortunately” is not a state but “only” an union of independent and sovereign states. Therefore there is no one in the Brussels administration that would only get close to having a role that would qualify as commander in chief.

An EU army, on the other side, that can only act after 27 heads of state have agreed on what to do would only be very inadequately described as “lame duck”.

Or to say it more directly: An EU army even theoretically can not happen before the French (and all other EU countries) are willing to give up their sovereignty. Not to happen anytime soon …

Germany

MattL wrote:

(nb the very fact people talk about an EU ‘Army’ shows fundamental issues from the start..)

The only “fundamental issue” in that respect might be that many if not most of the users of this forum are not English native speakers, so that the difference between “army” and “armed forces” might be a simply linguistic one for most…

Germany

Malibuflyer wrote:

An army needs a Commander in Chief that is – at least as it is agreed today in all democratic and also most non democratic nations – a politician not a military employee.

That’s likely true in “presidential” democracies where the power of the executive branch rests with the president personally. But is it always true in democracies where the power of the executive branch rests collectively with the members of a cabinet (e.g. Sweden)? The Swedish Supreme Commander is a general but the minister of defense (by the Swedish constitution) doesn’t wield any personal power over the military.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

The Swedish Supreme Commander is a general but the minister of defense (by the Swedish constitution) doesn’t wield any personal power over the military.

So in Sweden the armed forces themself (in person of this Supreme Commander) decide upon declaring war or intervening in. an international conflict?

That’s actually very surprising as I was expecting esp. in a “neutral” country like Sweden that the government has strong control over the armed forces.

Germany
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top