I don’t think it will ever happen. Imagine a government having to explain why its solders are dying in a war that their government didn’t support or didn’t have any great interest in, simply because the EU told them they had to fight.
But if it did, is there really any significant military capability in the EU anyway? I imagine the loss of the UK would have taken a significant portion of military capability out. Is there enough military capability in the other EU states to make a force that’s worth the effort?
Or would the EU be better off coordinating an economic response where biting sanctions could be quickly implemented in all states which might be more effective than a weak military response?
Jujupilote wrote:
Let’s wait a bit more for answers before we draw any conclusions
But silence is an answer too.
I’m afraid your scenario is an almost-perfect example of a situation where some European countries would want to get involved and others would not!
I honestly don’t think the concept of collective or shared armed forces between nation states can work. We Brits get a lot of stick for the importance we attach to 1939-45, but it has informed our defence policy ever since and the take-home message (which is really from 1939-41) is that when the chips are down you need to be able to engage in large-scale military action alone. If you don’t have this capability then it’s debatable what the value of having a military force actually is, other than providing employment and a publicly-funded customer for expensive hardware.
skydriller wrote:
ALL NATO members agreed in 2006 to contribute 2% of GDP to defence.
Don’t trust the Trump propaganda.
There has never been such an “agreement”. In the final document of the NATO summit 2006 the 2% are not even mentioned. There have been some oral statements around this but it has not been an agreement.
It was not before 2014 that these 2% were mentioned in an official document of the NATO. But here, again, no-one committed to spending it, but it was said that “within the next 10 years those countries who are currently below these 2% will make efforts to move towards them” (note: original text might differ; it’s my translation of the German version). Making efforts to move towards 2% is substantially different from “agreed to contribute”, isn’t it.
And even if it was, it would have been a good example of the problem of a joint European military strategy: Politicians who “agreed” to something unfortunately forgot that we live in democracies. And in such democracies – esp. in the tradition of Western Europe – a doubling of the effective spent for military would be something that required a broad discussion in the population. None of which happened in Germany! Prior to the Gates speech (2011) it was even broadly unknown to the German public, that such a target has ever been discussed – and the German politicians involved fell back to the (technically correct) defense that they did agree to nothing…
Fuji_Abound wrote:
o a limited extent we have seen this both with China and Russia where they have overrun some territories very quickly, leaving the world to tut and complain, but of course they have what they want, and its too late for much for a response.
Even if you had the most nimble, most decisive military alliance that is possible, I doubt even then anyone would have done anything about Russia and Crimea. It’s a region no one in NATO cares about all that much, and would you really risk a direct confrontation with Russia over Crimea? A direct confrontation that has a highly significant risk of simply ending western civilisation in global thermonuclear fire, over somewhere you basically don’t care about?
alioth wrote:
It’s a region no one in NATO cares about all that much, and would you really risk a direct confrontation with Russia over Crimea?
The obvious follow on question: What would you risk a direct confrontation with Russia or China over, if not over Ukraine? Belarus? Moldavia? Romania? Hungary? Austria? Germany? (or as in the earlier example: Taiwan?).
There’s obviously a difference between NATO members and non-members – but this is a legal one that is not very close to the heart of people…
One thing that most would agree on is that Donald Trump was unpredictable, especially when it came to support of NATO.
Joe Biden might be more supportive, but what about the next President?
If I was president or prime minister of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Germany, Finland IMO I would be neglectfull of my duty if I did not have a back up plan to counter any threat from Russia in the future. Could we really rely on USA or even the UK now.
A European defence force would not necessarily be expected to go into battle in other parts of the world eg Taiwan. The decision to do that would rest as now with individual countries.
But IMO it would be in the best interests of the EU to have a defence policy and a defence force to counter any external aggressor, whether that be Russia, China or ISIS.
Malibuflyer wrote:
[…]
Yes, obviously the “Erasmus generation” doesn’t understand borders. (at least if they are more “left” in a European sense of the word and not "right which is also a significant part of the younger generation).
Oh I think they understand very well. Especially with topics the whole world has to tackle, like climate change and globalised economics. Many examples have shown that protectionism won’t do the trick and the nation is a 19th century idea on the retreat. Free trade, equal opportunities and fair compensation are more and more important in everyday economic decisions and a United States of Europe is but one of the steps to a unified mankind (that, agreed, I will not live to see, but is inevitable. Either this or destruction.)
Malibuflyer wrote:
They also do not understand that they have to pay for anything in life…
Okay, Boomer.
Malibuflyer wrote:
The challenge of United States of Europe are not movement of persons that travel for leisure or that can at pay for their living by themselves (ok, their parents do if we are talking about Erasmus students). The challenge come when it comes to standard of living, social security systems, taxes, etc.
Tell the Irish (22% tax and social security contributions in % of BIP) that they have to more than double their payments to get to a unified EU level (44% in Belgium, Denmark)…
Tell the Germans that they will only receive the subsistence limit when they lose their job, because we can’t pay more for all unemployed Spanish…
Tell the Swedish that we love their social security system but as we do not stand the slightest chance to roll it out across Romania, Greece or Portugal…The US of A work (kind of OKish) like any other US as they are not a welfare state in a European sense but restrict themselves to an open market and some fundamental regulatory policy. That is not compatible with what many people in Europe expect from a state.
These are really big problems if you hang on a nationalistic worldview. However, that is not how most young people think. There is much more in common between the mechanic in Denmark and the mechanic in Germany and the mechanic in France, than what divides them. People much more think like “We engineers can do…” and “we farmers can do…” rather than “We Germans can do…” and “We polish can do…”. And rightfully so. The feeling is not “we Germans pay the Spanish pensions”. Now, ee “young” people will pay for the boomers pensions. Across the European borders.
Usually boomers fear a unified social security and taxation system. Younger folks don’t. You should take a closer look how the large cohort has rigged the systems and who benefits from it.
(His Book is a good read).
Abolishing such a system is no threat to young people.
In Germany we have a similar case. Our neighbours, a salesman and a clerk with two children, only can barely afford to buy a house in these days. One of these jobs supported home ownership for the boomers. A good friend of mine, aeronautical engineer, has a similar problem in the Hague. Whenever there is a suitable object on the market, he isn’t even at the bank before a boomer came with cash and bought the house – not to live there, but as an investment object.
THIS is what young people are faced with and this is why we need not fear a unified system.
And to be honest, you implied that the abolishment of tax havens within the EU would be a bad thing. It is not and a unified taxation would not only do much to reduce unequality, it also would lead to a more level playing field.
gallois wrote:
But IMO it would be in the best interests of the EU to have a defence policy and a defence force to counter any external aggressor, whether that be Russia, China or ISIS.
It would probably be a good idea for the EU to have an independent-of-NATO (i.e. not reliant on the US or UK) defence pact among its members such that any threat from Russia can be fought on that eastern frontier.
This wouldn’t be an EU Army though. It’d be a mutual defence pact, with forces from member countries assigned to the frontier in rotation.
Malibuflyer wrote:
The obvious follow on question: What would you risk a direct confrontation with Russia or China over, if not over Ukraine? Belarus? Moldavia? Romania? Hungary? Austria? Germany? (or as in the earlier example: Taiwan?).
There’s obviously a difference between NATO members and non-members – but this is a legal one that is not very close to the heart of people…
Heart of people of their brain? ;)
I think there are important elements in decision making:
1. NATO membership (NO for Ukraine and Crimea)
2. What the locals want (the majority really want to be with Russia, even if you discount the “referendum” results of 90%+)
3. Any other guarantees, unions and promises (EU, US and Russia DID guarantee territorial integrity of Ukraine)
So with 1 out of 3 the result is not so good.
With any EU country it is going to be 3 out of 3.
And my strong belief is that the main purpose of the defence force is to DEFEND the country(s) or alliance territory and not to go to the other part of the world and kill millions of people because you like it that way, or they have some resources you want (like it happened to Iraq).
Don’t agree in many points.
mh wrote:
Many examples have shown that protectionism won’t do the trick and the nation is a 19th century idea on the retreat. Free trade, equal opportunities and fair compensation are more and more important in everyday economic decisions and a United States of Europe is but one of the steps to a unified mankind
“Free trade, equal opportunities and fair compensation” exclude each other as soon as you apply them to an area of land large enough to have very different natural resources, climate, etc.
If you e.g. establish “free trade” without any subsidies, you would either kill or at least ensure much less than “fair compensation” to farmers in at least 2/3 of the European Union. The entire agriculture industry of Europe will fail instantaneously if you establish free, subsidy free trade.
Even “fair compensation” is not really feasible: Just tell German workers, from tomorrow on they will receive a compensation which is “fair” compared to average European standards. They won’t think it’s a good idea.
mh wrote:
However, that is not how most young people think.
Don’t know where you get your knowledge from “how most young people think” – I would even consider that there is no common ground “how young people think” across Europe – despite perhaps a very small but very loud elite that is mobile and international. A 17 old in Germany who just started his traineeship at Volkswagen thanks completely different from a 17year old unemployed in Spain!.
There is the illusion in especially liberalist highly educated and rich spheres, that “this Greta thing” is how the youth thinks. It’s not! It’s an elites dream.
mh wrote:
The feeling is not “we Germans pay the Spanish pensions”.
Surely not – because they don’t! Yes, they pay for the boomers pensions. But does that get better, if you make German kids pay for Greek boomers pensions as well?
Or is your idea that you let the boomers starve (btw.: Not me, I’m younger) because nobody pays for the pensions? The whole pension system in Europe was born from the fact that after the war we had a lot of old people, but no resources left to pay for their living. In lack of a better idea they decided that the young pay for the old. Fast forward 70 years we still don’t have a better idea.
mh wrote:
In Germany we have a similar case. Our neighbours, a salesman and a clerk with two children, only can barely afford to buy a house in these days.
And your point is, that they could afford a home more easily if we reduce the German wages and social standards to the European average?
