Could the EU Form its Own Army? - TLDR News 

and yet again a frenchman did it...I guess uniting everyone is an ultimate surrender move

There was an Irish Brigade as well. Then again, you'll see an Irishman fight against the Brits in every war all the way up to independence

We could call it the Grande Armeé 2

@@azahel542 La Grande Armée Deux: Electric Boogaloo

@@leelicayan2549 Étonnant

Not the first step at all. Since 1993, The Netherlands and Germany have a shared army corps, the 1st German-Dutch Corps, with 50% dutch and 50% german divisions under a single HQ, as part of the NATO response force.

@@Pfooh yes but precisely thet falls under NATO, not the EU

@@Pfooh I don't know if it was first or not but doesn't really matter, we should finally get an EU force formed. As a Greek, Mitsotakis has done a few 'questionable' things as a PM but i support this specific move from him. I think there is greater threat on Europe right now and we need to be as united and independent as possible, even militarily. Just my humble opinion

@@MhxanobiosS I can only agree with you I am from Cyprus we are not in the NATO only EU

@@Pfooh no this is much different , the alliance of france greece is beyond nato. Even if a NATO member attacks them they are obligated to fight them. Its really the basis for a real eu army.

Its obvious that a EU Army won't be ready tomorrow, but if the will is there it's very possible to standardise equipment quickly. Projects already existing such as the eurofighter etc. show that it works.

@Block Lord bruh

@Block Lord So stay under protection of the US and its interests in your opinion then?

@Block Lord And who will save us? USA? Puny England? And how, with their ginormous God's complex?

@Block Lord you do realise that the US military is its biggest jobs program? That's one of the reasons the US wants everybody else to spend more on defence: so they buy more US stuff = $$$$$$. I don't think it's a bad thing if the increased military spending in Europe delivers jobs in Europe rather than the US.

I'm not sure, but did you forget the Council in your analysis? Being comprised of the current leaders of each member nation, its usual veto power of each of its members in matters of much (most?) EU policy is a worthy democratic consideration to ensure that, say, a military action that one or more members is/are against wouldn't go ahead (or at least could be opted out of).

Parlament for declaring war and under the Comission when EU is attacked. That way we dont redo WW2

@@executor31 yes, probably the best way is to give an operative command to the commission for a quick responce when needed and a directive long term control to the parliament. That would be, in the best EU tradition, a synthesis of differences not so simply to grasp but hopefuly quite effective :-)

The EU parliament makes more sense mainly because there is more hands in the pie, at the top end with governments, it's too easy for them to get too emotional or corrupt on these matters whereas in a parliament, more people involved should make that harder. With that said, I do think the EU Commission and President should be merged and just called the EU president, it should also be directly elected by the public, if there is one weakness of the EU it's that it doesn't engage enough with the European people the benefits of EU membership hence why we got Brexit and Eurosceptic movements.

I hope that in the future, the commission can be replaced by a directly elected president of the european union. Because of the slowness and inefficiency of the legislative body’s all over the world, in almost all cases, he should have jurisdiction over the army, naturally with checks and balances.

Or we can use our anti trust laws that exist and re enstate a few regulations that will fester competition

@@geoffreycharles6330 I have no issue with Asia, but I do not think they are on the same level with regards to data privacy and renewables as the Europeans. I think we have more to offer the Europeans than the countries in Asia as well.

@@geoffreycharles6330 maybe its not about the color but because of the origin story of the US? european settlers grabing that land from the native and all that, thereby there is a connection historicly even though it may not be a very pleasent one especially looking at the independance war against the former british empire. Also what makes you think the US is not cooperating with asia, that little blustering with china? look at the corporate framework established by Bush W,, look at strong military and corporate ties to Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, the Philipijnes and others. I dont't see that there wouldn't be a stong cooperation already.

@@geoffreycharles6330 Damn everthing is about race these days, isn't it? God Damn.

@@MynameIsnotforsell yes please do, maybe then those international US based mega corps wont go everywhere fucking things up, then again, maybe additional to that we also need more international regulations on companies.

Russia has always been its own worst enemy.

Don't forget article 5 of NATO, the US can refuse to interviene if they want. being a mamner of NATO is not a waranty.

@@inwedavid6919 ??? Have you read Article 5? The whole purpose of it is that no member can refuse!

@S0urc3C0de you know except Turkey, backstabbers honestly. I get wanting to be friendly with everybody around you but when it goes against the alliance you are a part of, then why bother allowing that nation to stay?

@@srccde NATO considers an attack on one of NATO members an attack against all, obviously it would increase hostilities and it will be an absolute horrifying mess, if they respond nukes will be exchanged at some point during the conflict, if they don't respond due to these deterrents and choose to control the expansion without resorting to weapons of mass destruction, the continuity of the organization will be in peril. Ukraine however is the sweet spot, it's not the war that will trigger a full scale war between the liberal West and the conservative East, it could have been worse. I'm not indifferent to the human losses, but the numbers could have been in the double digit millions, a way of respecting the dead is through truce and a union, which will never happen in the current state of things sadly.

If you can opt out then it is not a force that can be counted on

That would effectively make the "EU Army" worthless if people can choose not to commit to actions then it's not a functional military force.

@@jerrymiller9039 the danish defence opt out is a guarantee secured when Denmark joined the EU stating that they wouldn't participate in any areas of EU defence. When there are EU defense meetings the Danish delegation will currently just have to turn their microphones off/leave. This is kind of stupid since we already cooperate with alot of these countries in this regard via NATO, so theres is loss of Danish influence to European defence policy

Offensive strategy must include provision for all members states to opt out, through vetos, however defensive and peacekeeping must be fully signed up for by all EU states to protect our democracy

@@andreasgregorfrank9057 Denmark is effectively already in the Euro, our currency has been pegged to the euro for decades. We just dont have any say on Euro monetary policy because we refuse to fully participate

Yes another Greek here, even though we had some hiccups with EU i still feel a member of it and i'm all in for an EU army. There is a greater threat on our continent and EU countries must be united in this. Also Germany&France plz more energy independence lol, it's laughable that we made ourselves so dependent on others

A continent that is indebted to foreign financial institutions cannot hope to follow its own way, Europe is enslaved economically and this intended army would soon fall into the hands of the rich to further their own interests and perserve goals without ever showing up as we are representing them, in other words it would be everything but beneficial to the people, every development we make especially in such industries is a free asset to exploit, as if the populations weren't enough of a cannon fodder. Until we address urgent issues like media brainwash and some critical misconceptions or misunderstanding while promoting dialogue instead of division, a move like this will be disastruous to everyone, you can't arm undiplomatic nations that refuse to talk with its adversaries and decide to follow a political agenda primarily designed by the rich few, an agenda that is supported by propaganda to shape the public opinion on their own platforms and twisting real events, presenting what they want everybody to see as a glorious righteous movement and facile to absorb by honest working people who haven't got time to research what is genuinely going on and filling their natural void of political knowledge by what is desired. Europe is like a train that is remotely driven right into an undestructible wall perceived as the enemy, a fabricated enemy after decades of brainwashing campaigns. Maybe we should recreate an identity, a free identity instead of being someone else's lapdog, ready to be disposed of, why are we trying to recreate world war 2 I don't understand, the Americans had a massive GDP growth and owned all involved parties and more after the war, wouldn't people suspect that they are trying to keep it that way? We will all die while somebody else sends us tweets of encouragement until there's nothing left of us. Since I am responding to formerly honorable and fearful spartans, modern day Greece almost defaulted on its european debt, in parallel the european continent is literally the American's greece, an ally until there's nothing left of it. Times change and the things we see in movies, read in the books, study at schools are outdated, it's a different world now, and only people a few centuries from now will find the true meaning of what has been happening, thing is, we won't leave them a bright legacy, division is happening right before our eyes, an existential crisis is in peak development by literal lunatics and all we do is submit. Historically speaking, Europe had always been dependent, there's just not enough raw materials on it, dependency is inevitable, unless you intend to invade Africa once again and pillage it(take into account that many resources are still being drained from Africa and shipped for Europe for laughable unchanged prices even after dissolving the colonies, but that is still not enough), the state of the world and the inability to organize ourselves amicably seems like a literal checkmate from god's master plan, the world is pathetically struggling in almost every aspect and it sounds like it's going downhill from here, unfortunately for the innocent, and curse every contributor who assisted this massive shit, from all social levels, from all times of life.

Don"t , if this leftist degenerates get an army that will be a disaster

I feel like europe neglects greece too much. There should be more sustainable investments in Greece to make its economy thrive again. I live in the netherlands

I agree, best wishes from Germany

Trump was right when he said all NATO members that don't allocate minimum 2% of their GDP to military spending should be kicked out of NATO

Maybe your tax payers are subsidizing American arms manufacturers? Do you really think the US spending more than the next 10 biggest military's on the planet combined is for some benevolent purpose?

@First Last NATO is just the USA carrying our EU butts around yes.

@First Last The US wouldn't pay less into its military if all NATO members spend 2% of GDP, they just want to give a reason for that high spending. If NATO members all spend 2%, they'll just come with a new one (increased threat, global power, ...). The main reason btw why the US wants European nations to spend 2% is because European nations tend to buy a lot from the US defence industry.

@First Last well all wars in the last years where started by the us?

They’ve openly been talking and making the groundwork for a EU army for along long time. Not sure why you’re pretending it’s only just came about. Probably because you’ve been lying for the last 6 years saying the EU would never have its own army.

@@darrena5384 Yeah, talking.

@@Draculas-knight what do you mean nobody would have guessed that, you can say that in 2008, not even 2014, and now 2022 same shit again?

Well, that is the design of the EU, you can only change anything if all members agree. Well, that would also be a good thing about a EU army. It would automatically defend any country of the EU but it would not start an adventure all around the world, because there would not be an agreement of the member countries.

@@Draculas-knight I dont know, probably something to do with in Jan, Feb this year US and NATO holds firm on the RIGHT of Ukraine join NATO in responds to Russia's demand? and Ukraine itself is promoting pro NATO? The possibility of Russia invade Ukraine must have been considered by NATO and US. Or do you think they are just too stupid to see that coming?

I am so hapoy i am not the only one who noticed this

It is Russian server in background.

The war on Ukraine wouldn’t have started under Trump’ watch. Stop implying nonsense.

It could have relied less just by each country fulfilling its responsibilities re 2% GDP spending on defence. Free riding on US spending whilst simultaneously complaining that having to rely on US seems pretty inconsistent.

What do you mean with issues with guns? Wouldnt an EU army make war with eachother impossible?

The EU was created to prevent France and Gremany from going into war. The UK and US supported the creation of smaller European nations to prevent European hegemony. That said this isn't the 19th/20th century. Europe shares more values than ever before and we live in a world that requires close coordination with others otherwise you get forced into a Federation. USA, Russia, China for examples. It is about time Europe came together on more issues. And tried to fit as many nations as as possible into the puzzel without forcing one European power. We should share joint powers/responsibility.

Trump told Angela Merkel to 1) Contribute to NATO fairly and 2) Not to rely on Russia for fuel. So, was it Trump or the Europeans who complained of Trump's good sense the problem?

You mean Germany and France will start a new love and peace relationship??

who told you there are no exercises with french ships? its happening all the time...much more often than the us.

Maybe you conveniently omitted the Greek co ops with the Israel navy & air force.?I believe the French & Italian navies also participate

We have one, it's called nato

@@seanblackwell8725 How to say you don't understand NATO without saying you don't understand NATO

@@lukabozic5 Trump is a threat to NATO

@@Seecked What has that to do with my comment?

@@lukabozic5 responded to the wrong comment lol mb

The nation's aren't gone, you just fight for them in a way bigger army. Also more nationalistic countries like Greece or poland tend to be in favor of an European army, while less nationalistic countries like the Netherlands tend to be more against it.

so what is about nato?

@@sssd3461 Nato isn't an army, it's basically a defensive pact to my understanding. :)

The Austro-Hungarian empire and the Holy Roman Empire had mulit lingual armies and the language barrier among units caused many issues. One was a famous defeat against the Ottomans were the Ottomans didn't even have to fire a shot.

Most EU citizens like to visit other EU countries and consider themselves 'Europeans'. The National identity could easily be replaced (in a generation or so) with an EU identity.

the EU isn't dependent on the US. But any upset to the status quo would take the current world order for a fucking tailspin. Then again, seeing the fucking mess the Americans made with Ukraine, it might not be so bad.

@@HrHaakon Well, Americans or not, Ukraine is a free country and Russia has exactly ZERO moral right to say what happesn in Ukraine. People of Ukraine decide everything, Russia decides nothing. But Russia never understood this concept of a "sovereign free nation", they think they own everything.

Europe doesn't lack military power even at this low spending. We are all civilized and till last month did not need the military at all. If not for idiotic Russian ambitions to rebuild an empire (Russians, you are no longer an empire or a superpower - just get over it mentally), we would not have had to waste so much money on increased military spending. All those hundreds of billions could have gone to develop a better future for our people and higher standard of living. Now we will spend it all on pointless devices developed to kill Humans in large quantities. Way to go Human civilization!

​@@thornelderfin That's hypocritical of you. Ukraine, the country that jails journalists critical of the regime, where opposition parties are banned and so on is not really a free country. Russia cannot accept the threat to their survival a Nato with Ukraine in it poses to them. They will burn the world to the ground before accepting that, because accepting Ukraine means accepting a continuous threat of invasion. Now I know that as most americans you're for "spreading democracy", bombing villages and all that fun stuff, but keep in mind that the children receiving the drone strikes that delivers the democracy might be somewhat less enthused. If we really wanted peace in Ukraine, then we (Europe + USA) would have, since 2013 or so, tried to make some sort of deal with Ukraine and Russia that we all could have lived with. But that's not what we did, so it cannot be what we wanted.

@@HrHaakon how exactly is Russia threatened by NATO when they have thousands of nukes?

I think the general EU populous is much too pacifistic to allow the creation of something 'regrettable'. Remember that all those conflicts of the last 2000 years wasn't decided by popular desire, but by autocrats.

@@mnxs I don't quite agree on that last part. Remember the crusades weren't just the decision of an autocrat. Many times wars were waged and supported by the people for resources , land or and ideologies. It's irresponsible and quite wrong that the decisions of a few individuals are the only reasons for war. Vikings raids are also a good example.

Dormant superpower. That's an accurate description.

@@jackkelly6890 War and battle is in our very nature. To say that select few force wars is indeed wrong. It should be mentioned that the purpose of The Geneva Convention isn't noble centered. The reason for its existence is purely for the fact that if such standard wasn't upheld wars would be too devastating. It's something akin to a gentleman's code in order to give meaning both in winning and losing. What is the point of winning if yours and the enemy's land was ravaged by bombs. This also gives a way out for the losers. Usually in the past if you lost , it usually led to complete extinction. Assimilating the natives , especially if they resisted fiercely, was very rare.

@@alexandervlaescu9901 It's a common belief nowadays that "the people" just want to be left alone and live their lives in comfort and peace and those damned evil rich politicians are dragging them into war. Not only is it, as you demonstrated, completely wrong, for a vaguely populist talking point, it ironically removes all responsibility and even the agency of "the people." It is blind to the power that popular will has. It presents the population at large as essentially cattle who just want to be left alone and are largely disinterested in politics unless it directly affects their individual personal lives, such as a war or certain economic policies. It also presents the political leadership as above the people. Although it is in a negative light, it still sees politicians as possessing far more agency than the perpetually dormant and disinterested public. Funnily enough, this viewpoint gives more power to the people they complain about, the evil rich politicians, as it, as I said above, ignores the power of popular will. If a nation's people can call for war, they can call for anything else, too.

One problem with an EU nato can be summarized as "not enough 2%'s and not enough nukes" The reason european countries go to nato for a solution I suspect is they didn't want to spend too much to begin with. By happenstance there is a maniac across the pond whose political structure heavily incentives military spending so lets just use their nukes. Sounds like the best deal ever.

Nato is cheaper, many countries do not meet the 2% gaol and are still accepted and defended due to USA's HUGE army budget

As a Swede I would rather join a European defence alliance than NATO too. USA is not reliable enough. USA also doesn't care about European interests.

Yep, the refugee crisis in Europe had its roots in the NATO campaign in Libya.

@@dodovomitory3496 nato campaign in Libya was launched by France lmao

British car industry was dead the second it got nationalised, it's not that deep really

Don't make me dream like that

What

I read that in Palpatine's voice.

As long as we don't end up being organized like ragtag UK we'll be fine

Thunderous applause

EU are not even united politically, so this is simply a fantasy

@@dawiddawid7198 The United States wasn't either but that didn't stop us.

@@dawiddawid7198 If the EU wasn't politically united, there'd be no sanctions against Russia. It's only a fantasy if enough people believe it to be.

No there is NATO for this , if the EU gets an army that will be a leftist degenerates private armed forces , nothing to do with europe

@@theMPrints Why would an EU army be a leftist private army? That maken no sense.

Based

EU and USA doesn't use the same equipment. Each member can use it's own stuff if it's compliant with NATO standards, and the members with a decent military industry make their own systems. NATO gives more security with the USA but it's not free. If you rely on another country for your defense, you'll have to align your foreign policy with that country and buy some stuff in return. For example, some F35 (even if that aircraft is crazy expensive and does not suits the best the needs of your air force). The USA do not finance NATO for fun, they do that because it gives them a lot of political and economical influence on the countries they protect.

@@julienboyer Ok, but its almost like they both depend on the same economic conditions of global free trade, with ease of imports and exports between nations. this is why the USA and EU prosper, if they stopped doing this they would tank their own economies. Yes it gives them leverage over european countries, but NATO defends more than the EU does in terms of people, countries, and land. Also as an American who has spent a few years living in Italy, I do not expect to agree with europeans on policy and other decisions. The average american doesn't really care that much about what europe want to do, just that europe agrees on defending and spreading democracy. Note how the USA, despite it asking it's allies to do something about China, doesn't really leverage anything to get them to agree with its stance of "china bad". The integration I talked about has to do with the fact that NATO forces are designed to work together and are still placed strategically with planes to combat russia, like during the cold war.

NATO presupposes that we all do what the US tells us to do. If the EU had a comparable force to the US, even if it's say, half of the US' one, do you really think that this will keep up?

@@HrHaakon no way does NATO do what the US says. France is a little better now, but France seemingly used to disagree with the US , just for the hell of it.

@@1214101 France disagreed because France has always wanted and pursued having its own independent strategic autonomy, not 'just for the hell of it'.

No. The EU needs a coherent and united foreign policy.

I would choose bit different approach. Current armies would became part of united army of EU to large extent yet they would keep their current uniforms, traditions and so on and national governments would still be able to use them on their territory, but in case of need EU would take control over professional part of military. Active reserves (which in Czechia consist of civilians who think it is right thing to do, but they do not want to submit their lives fully to military) and those serving mandatory military service would remain fully under control of national governments unless state of war is declared and edict by government is issued by which they would temporary yield control in favour of EU. As well there is question of Navy, which, IMHO should became completely under EU control. This should allow for creation of powerful naval force.

A "Europe of Two Speeds" is partially what got us into this mess where the EU can never agree on big changes until catastrophe is at our doorstep. Continuing to try and force the existence of "Two Speeds" isn't going to help.

So ur Proposing the Starleague from Battletech with its Member states and house army’s ? Not that bad of an idea

Most European countries are only interested in domestic defence not global intervention. They are not seeking to be a superpower.

The UK and France are very capable fighting wherever they want and in fact have done that very often in recent decades

You are perfectly correct. Another problem is there are far too much equipment which is not compatible and a problem of spares in a modern war. It is well known now that "modern" wars consume enormous amount of equipment & munitions. It is my belief that Nato only has reserves for 3 months and consequently is very vulnerable. There is no unified anti missile/aircraft/.drone system protecting Eur believe it or not ! The relatively flat plains of NW europe with its nice autobahns and rail system are equally vulnerable. I ask the question is even the Channel Tunnel protected against sabotage.? The plan to install heavy equipment in pre disposition bases has some merits, but we have seen, due to good intelligence, Russia has successfully demolished such Ukrainian bases (and their largest one is reported to have been destroyed to day). So what is the solution? In my opinion defence spending in NATO needs to be increased to about 6% of GDP followed by, at present, limited conscription to create a very well trained NATO land force able to operate together of about 1.5 million. Their tanks need to have be equipped with Trophy anti missile armour (or similar if better) and require common parts as mentioned. These forces need to be based in forward bases and on high alert levels. And finally western Europe needs a comprehensive anti missile etc system with supporting radar.

@@gordonski9310 Conscription builds resentment, the reason western militaries are so effective is because they wanted to be there. I'm of conscription age, i simply would not be able to bring myself to point a firearm at someone and pull the trigger, it'd simply break me. Most Russian soldiers aren't bad people, they're just the same as me with mothers, friends, wives, girlfriends etc... I simply cannot accept being forced into war

@@mrcaboosevg6089 Your vote of confidence is admirable but terribly misplaced. UK with its NATO and Commonwealth etc obligations has the smallest army since Waterloo 1815. It stands at only 82,000 regulars. The Government has proposed another cut of 10,000 later this year which will make it smaller than the French Gendarmerie ! France has a more formidable army but little experience. If you want peace and a deterrent (without use or threat of nuclear weapons) after viewing the debacle in Ukraine you need to double increase defence spending and re think the real threats facing europe. The choice is yours.

the combined european armies are way stronger than russia's forces. what does make a difference though are the nukes. yes, france has some, but in order to really hold russia at bay at least germany would have to become a nuclear power as well. and for some weird reasons many nations don't seem to like the idea of a nuclear armed germany.

@@montanus777 I believe Germany itself didn't want to do it to begin with. The nuclear weapons sharing program they participate it was enough for them. They didn't even maintain conventional military corresponding to their economical and influence levels. I just think they didn't want to take the responsibility for it all but how they are kinda forced to. We'll see what happens but I certainly hope a more united European military, and especially EU units.

@@huskytail true, the nuclear question always leads to hot debates in germany (but then again it was more or less the same in france). in regards of other military spendings you mustn't forget that the limitation of the german army was a key condition by the allies for our reunification. they were still afraid of a strong germany. after we disarmed large chunks of our military equipment (esp. the eastern parts) and released thousands of soldiers (again esp. east germans) in the 90ies of course we weren't _too_ eager to buy new weapons in the 2000s, that we just got rid of.

@@montanus777 oh yes, I understand completely. Actually in the UK they are still afraid of the EU army as a possibility because it might become a German way of controlling Europe. One of their arguments for Brexit 🤷🏼‍♀️. I don't know how to explain the logic of destroying their way of making sure it doesn't happen, but oh well.. stranger things have happened. But I think that it's time for modern Europeans to understand that we are small countries in a big world and economic prosperity comes with peace and peace is there only when someone makes sure there's peace. And as much as we don't like it, it means strong and independent military. And the only way to do that is to be together, understand that from Ireland to the Black sea and from the Baltic to Portugal we are way more interconnected than we thought and share much more than we realize and depend on each other.

I think a European Army would be strong enough to be the one going on the offensive….. plus I think every army would just guard their own country it’s just a coordination thing

As a German, I agree. If Greece or Finland were attacked by Russia or Turkey, sending our troops wouldn’t be “defending someone else” but defending ourselves.

I don't like the idea of a federalised EU 👎

@Benito Thambiraj A federalized EU would probably able to have a huge army and make think twice those autocrats regime before doing stupid stuff!

what language is gonna be used? English? Or French or German? Lets say you put: 1.Romanians, 2. Polish, 3.Greeks, 4.Spanish, 5.Italians, and many more lol... nationalities, they must use one language that unites them right?

@@davidlefranc6240 lol

@Benito Thambiraj what exactly a federalised EU means? Basically turning European Union into a big country like USA?

You are right, every country in Europe defends it's own interests. France wants to be independent from US influence, while the eastern countries want to be protected by the USA. And that conflicting goals are an issue for European unity. But it's not fair to blame either side to do that.

Yeah and why should'nt french interest be the very ones of these countries you mention ? After all, it is what the Union is about - having common interests and objectives.

@@MrLecancre Depends if you want to get drafted to fight in Africa over a French blood diamond mine. France, once again, is going colonial in Africa and doesn't want to foot the bill for the French Foreign legion this go around. So an "European army" would be a way to make all of Europe foot the bill in blood and treasure and they of course reap the benefits.

If a European Army is going to work, then it’s going to need to be a European controlled army, not just a European-composition army. While France and Germany are the two big heads in Europe and hold a lot of sway in the direction the EU goes, that can’t be the state of affairs for the control of an army that could potentially rival the US in some aspects (and if Europe spends a similar level to the US, Federalizes, and secures a friendly supply of the resources need to feed said military, the EU could theoretically support a military that could rival and maybe slightly surpass the US one, given the similar economic and population base). Keeping the status quo would be like California, Texas, and New York all quibbling over where to send the US military to. It just wouldn’t work. It’ll have to be firmly in EU hands, and likely deeply self-integrated so France or Poland or Germany or whatever state can’t just back out last minute and pull out any of their citizen’s troops and have a mostly functioning army. There is NATO if you want a supra-national organization that is the various militaries working together. No it would need to integrate to the point that the common soldier considered themself to be European first and whatever else second. That kind of thing takes time, but until then any European army is effectively just going to be a backup self-defense measure in case NATO isn’t sufficient for one reason or another. Which btw, as an American, I will warn any Europeans reading this that it may be necessary to have a backup plan. If the US gets into a two-front war with China and Russia, it’ll make our jobs a lot easier if we don’t have to worry about taking out the Russians (hopefully they remain as incompetent as they have shown themselves to be in Ukraine until such time as Russia is fully incorporated into Western ideology and political and economic systems and isn’t ruled by a genocidal dictator, but you probably shouldn’t plan for the good-case scenario when considering a WWIII scenario) whilst simultaneously fighting against the first truly uphill battle the US has faced since the War of 1812. If the worst happens and the US is not able to throw the full might of its armed forces into defeating a European invader, it would probably be useful to have a framework for which member states can cooperate without the assumption that they are just to hold the line till the Americans arrive.

@@julienboyer Sa prend forme avec l'aide du Canada t'inquiete.

Europe doesn't go side USA or Russia. But remind defense and Europe doesn't wish to go war world 3

@Marc I’m Italian and i fear that just like the other times Nato did, they will use that army to fight wars against our interests or blatantly against us. In Libya we lost our entire oil fields and the Americans violated our national sovereignty using our personal military bases as launching points:/

No, we won't have to leave NATO. And nothing will change about access to EU: whoever WANTS join.

I agree.becouse a majority of NATO hasn't managed to 2% commitment for decades.

@@j.t.r1976 Many countries in Europe are increasing their defence budget right now. And some of them started this work already in 2014 when Russia took Crimea.

@@j.t.r1976 A majority of NATO countries aren't economical big players like Germany or France.

@@sirc1446 2%is 2%.they all agreed to it.i know for fact Germany hasn't done 2%in like 20years,France does occasionally,8other nations do.the others nope not @ all.

Yeah looks great on paper or as a proud boast of solidarity but about as solid as a sheet of loo roll!

No nato is here to stay no eu army isn’t happening

Could you explain why it doesn't make sense in the real world though? Theres alot of people on the internet like you that dismiss things without actually explaining what makes them bad. They just know that lots of the more small "c" conservative types will generally agree with this sentiment about anything new.

Russian agent detected. Yah a EU army scares Russia

@@ondank Eastern Europe doesn't trust Germany and France do defend them because they are too weak against Russian aggression.

if its so hard to motivate soldiers to go to a foreign land, and fight and die for a foreign country ... then how can nato exist? European troops fought for, and died for, the u.s. in Afghanistan. So yes, they will fight for fellow EU members.

yet you've no problem seeing French or German or Dutch troops taking orders from the u.s. an ocean away. eu countries (447m pop) already spend over three times Russia's defense budget. And have around 400k more active personnel than Russia. (~1.4 m vs 1 m) and russia can't beat Ukraine (pop 40m), one of the poorest countries on the continent, after 6 months. and counting.

You evaluate European interests. Is Catalonian separatism a problem for the whole EU? Yes, then EU army should intervene.

I cannot even imagine the military culture of an EU army; it will not be cohesive for a long time. Poles taking orders from a German general? Anyway, the Germans can handle Catalonian separatists, I don't think it would be the first time it happens.

Until they knock down ur door and drag u and ur family to re-education camps, if you express your weariness towards your ruling class. They wont be different than Putin.

No, because then they might star a war when they get abolished.

@@menschgebliebenergossenpar9213 It's a defense force, lad. Not the Gestapo.

@@rodsparks4980 they call it a defence force but the actions say something else like look at how some European countries were during Covid in countries that I thought were a lot more liberal than the UK went full on authoritarian therefore under a united military when the yellow vests come out to protest in France this European defence force will just send in say some German or Spanish brigade to suppress them because it'll be much easier for brutality when they're not your countrymen

@@rodsparks4980 And it's a "special military operation", not a war. Words have no meaning once politics enters the picture and once you have people with guns who are used to obeying orders, it only takes so long before some maniac decides to go for it. It's not unreasonable to worry a bit about what the long-term plan is here. A militaristic Europe is a bad idea. A militaristic Europe with a single, united army is a horrific idea.

Yes what could go wrong by centralising power for 500 million people in 44 countries😂😂😂😂

@@grittychops6755 it worked in America. It worked in Switzerland, Australia. It can work well all over Europe

we just make our own nato. if we can be in an alliance with the u.s. (which is constantly at war) then we can ally ourselves with other European countries too. csdp is the already laid foundation.

Well, the EU has its values that all member states swore to uphold when they applied to join. An army would simply be an executive force to uphold those values in the face of external threats. I also don't think that a non-defense force would ever got off the ground. The smaller nations would immediately veto it

@@viktor1496 Why do you think a "non-defense force" would not be in the interest of smaller nations? I imagine there are comapnies that spread their workforce over several nations and when smaller nations would be included into production cycles and gain acces to those jobs tehy could be swaid, meaning there are ways how they could be aligned and get into the boat, but i wonder which would be the reasons against such.

The Germans overrule your military. You are a puppet of Germany and the Eurocrats. You cheer at giving up your sovereignty to Brussels like a slave. All you're good for is to send billions of euros to France, Germany and other countries when Brussels tells you to while you have austerity. Your politicians sell your country for a career in Brussels. You've become a little colony of the eurocrats.

@@gamevalor and with such a comment, does anyone need to take you serious? I don't think so.

@@Mike05121988 When your prime minister gives a speech in Brussels, nobody cares! Most seats are empty lol. Keep voting for those politicians who send billions of euros from your country to Greece, Italy, Spain and to prop up the pensions of Germans and French. You're just an ATM machine of Brussels. When Merkel told your country to pay up, you protest a little bit, but your politicians will obey Berlin and Brussels anyway. lmao.

Good point. In fact all EU states together already outspend Russia 3:1. So this is really just a matter of efficiency, better cooperation. And I wonder what other direct threats we really have next to Russia... Africa? Unlikely. I' don't believe our EU politicians are doing this just to become a military superpower, but maybe it's a bit of an emotional response to overcompensate. So yeah, there should be a discussion about this...

Your views about France are not true.

@@Leopold_van_Aubel France is too weak and its forcing Zelensky to surrender. Meanwhile America and Britain are helping Ukraine to kill Russian generals and sink their ships.

Making it out at a young age is quite difficult. I started a side hustle at 17, saved up and made some good investments. l'm 28,live on my own and having a good life for myself. Big ups to you and everyone out there trying

@@cryptocasey1083 Sounds like plan, how do you put money to work?

@@alexmontrey5372 Yes it sure is. I put in money in investments and get profits. That 's how I make more money without working. This does not sound new to you right ?

@@cryptocasey1083 Thanks for replying me, I've heard so many people talk about investment but none had said how to do it right.

Am hoping on you can explain more on how you make extra income from investments

The difference between many European languages isn't as great as you might imagine. It's pretty common to find people in Europe who speak 5 or 6 languages fluently. Learning the second language is the hardest, after that it gets easier especially when languages are related like French and Spanish, German and Dutch, etc.

@@76rjackson In the context of strategy and warfare where as close to 100% correct intel is imporant you cant just have a person that is pretty good at understanding whats going on you need an expert. Even in same languages like European and Latin American Spanish you can F up pretty bad. One person might encounter a radio transmission talking about someone that should be killed "PAPA" and he might think "whatever I dont care if he kills his dad" BUT In 1 version of spanish Papa is Daddy and in the other one is the Pope. PRETTY HUGE DIFFERENCE if you ask me. If you have no EXPERTS you can shoot yourself in the foot by even struggling with dialects. How many English people who learned German know what a Semmel is? A Schrippe? Most of them know what a Brötchen is and thats it. But let there be a conversation about people hiding something very important next to the Berliners.. If you are not really an expert you might tell your higher ups to look for a group of soldiers or people from Berlin because they have something very important. While in fact Berliner can mean Pfannkuchen which is a doughnut without a hole in the middle. So you actually would have to check local bakeries instead. Also different dialects might flip word order. Might use different words alltogether as in my example. People might even come up with new words. Historic context might play a role. Or if its younger soldiers let them use internet slang that just exists in that language. If you are just pretty good in alot of languages you are not good enough for the job. You need to be an expert.

@@t.terone522 Yes, indeed, it would take someone who is an expert, and Europe is swimming in them, including folks who are fluent in dialects and even obscure, regional languages. Trying to obfuscate comms by switching up European languages isn't like using Navajo.

@@76rjackson And whatever you say still makes it a harder thing for Russia to do than for Nato. Which needs 10-20x less experts so my point still stands and you just wasted everyones time. Because you agreed with me that it takes experts. And its much easier to find a person that knows everything about russian (1 language!) than it is to find someone who knows everything about english, german, french, spanish, dutch. (several languages) So Russia would go and look for a person that knows everything about french and maybe also spanish. And another person who knows maybe everything about dutch and german and so on. More people needed to do the same job.

@@t.terone522 Many Europeans are born into a region where they speak a dialect or regional language. They learn that at home. They often have relatives who they spend time with who speak a different dialect or language so they learn that dialect or language as children, too. In school they will often study at least 2 foreign languages and their nation's official language. The developmental effect that living in such an environment has upon the ability of an individual to learn languages can not be understated. I have a relative from Austria who grew up in an Italian neighborhood in a French speaking city. By the time she completed elementary school she was conversant in German, French, Italian and English. With those languages as an intellectual substrate, learning almost any other European language would present very little difficulty. She did, on fact, go on to become a translator. And if you think my cousin's situation is special you would be very much mistaken. Now, regarding the concept of expertise; military communication is very specialized. Specialized communication requires knowledge of the lexicon or dicta of that particular field of endeavor. Those have been meticulously compiled and are ready for the study and review of a military linguist who can rapidly and easily assimilate them because they are already familiar with the linguistic intricacies of the language but are also expert in its lexicon. Your example of papa being father and Pope in varieties of south American Spanish is an interesting factoid one would expect to learn in HS Spanish. It hardly demonstrates the level of difficulty you assert it represents to block Russian linguists from understanding a European military communicating in multiple languages. The US military trains its linguists at a school in Monterey, CA, called the Defense Language Institute. The recruits may go from 0 to fluent in almost any language in about a year or so. With the right training, piercing the veil of a "foreign" language is not very difficult.

No we don't. If we can protect ourselves, we don't need to sit and wait for USA to come and help us, if they feel like it. (And not, if they don't feel like it). We could defend ourselves, without waiting.

For me the English are the ones who have not come to grip with the fact they are no longer a global superpower. The French want a European army because they understand they are too small in nowadays world against entities like China, Russia etc.

I agree.

I think they (the USA) would back it at this moment in time. As they haven't been shy in moving their focus towards China and the Pacific in general. The US (public, maybe less so the military), to me, don't seem to have been as fired up by this Russia-Ukraine war as they would have been during the Cold War. I guess Putin and his cyberwar infiltration of the Western (US and UK in particular) mindset, with the 'culture war', has done a good job in almost giving Putin and 'white' Russia a form of hero worship.

Yeah it would save us 400 billion a year We are tired of spending so heavily on military but we don’t have a choice when our allies think the world is nice and pretty and don’t defend themselves

@@jakesmall8875 400 billion is a fraction of the USA’s GDP and not even close to the amount, America spends on Europe. It ain’t that much. The reason America is sitting on the fence is because if Europe where to fall into the wrong hand, which certainly happened, and they would oppose decisions made by the US, which also happened. You guy’s are left in the dark. The only reason people don’t speak mandarin in Washington is because nato is large. Just because Germany didn’t spend anything on military up to recently, it doesn’t mean they cannot transform the huge manufacturing capabilities for military purposes. Americas most important ally was and is Europe. China and Russia combined can already out phase America if it’s alone. So I absolutely don’t understand why you guy’s are standing with division.

@@panelsm7933 yeah half our military budget is 400 billion and it goes towards Manning and maintains our foreign bases most of which are in Europe

@@jakesmall8875 you don't get bases here for free. don't like it hit the road.

The problem with EU decision making is that they need "consensus" to decide anything. Hopefully army won't have that policy

@@VFPn96kQT How cant it? certainly ALL members of the EU need to give the go ahead before their blood is sent to die?

@@henrixd5155 Army doesn't decide when and where to have a war. Usually, governments decide on a war, but how this war is handled is up to the army. After the decision is done to fight, there shouldn't be a consensus on the strategy. Army is not democracy.

Très bien mon empereur, cela sera fait selon vos désirs!

No, EU army is a great idea. At least NATO will have a real military leadership instead of 'murica

THey are elected by the chambers of officials elected by the people of each country afaik

Yes and no, I mean the EU parliament is elected, the Eu Commission are chosen by the EU Council and ratified by the Parliament and the Eu Council is composed by the head of states so is like you elect the Parliament in the eu election and through your national election you choose one of the Eu Council and then both of theme elect the Eu Commission democratic not really but at the same time you can influence the Eu decisions. If you are against some decisions you can see what your person voted for and next time you won't vote them.

I mean, the highest _bureaucrats_ are unelected in every country, right? You don't typically get to directly elect ministers or the heads of the various governmental organisations.

@@HeadsFullOfEyeballs i think the exceptions are Cyprus and France in Europe because they are presidential for Cyprus and semi presidential but in truth presidential for France

@@eeee-gr8sg I'd counter-argue that it's *more* democratic, since there's more room for dissent/disapproval on the selections of the highest bureaucrats. And since there's the possibility of someone not getting approved, they wouldn't put forward less-than disingenuous candidates.