EU Combined Military Thread

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
Gtal
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 31 Dec 2018, 19:55
Germany

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by Gtal »

J. Tattersall wrote:
Gtal wrote:INSISTED THAT NATO IS THE CORNERSTONE OF EUROPEAN DEFENCE AND FOR EUROPEAN COORDINATION IT WAS TOTALLY ADEQUATE TO HAVE THE WEU WHICH WAS BASED ON WEAK INTERGOVERNMENTALISM
Out of interest both CFSP and CSDP are both still intergovernmental too, the European Council having recently not taken up a 'passerelle clause' based approach to introduce limited QMV.

These things take time. But even though the UK left only 18 months ago.

We already have now EU budget money going straight into defence.
Absolutely UNTHINKABLE very recently.

We have direct commission involvement in defence through a new DG Space and Defence.
EDA budget and role is increased as well.

The EU is large and complex and these things take time but
It's clearely already becoming more supranational.

All this while we're dealing with an unprecedented social, health and economic world crisis.

That they're even discussing going for QMV in area of foreignpolicy is proof of how much things are changing.

Gtal
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 31 Dec 2018, 19:55
Germany

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by Gtal »

Lord Jim wrote:No the EU was originally responsible for operations in the Balkans, including the UK and we all messed up and it took NATO Command and Control capabilities and US resources to get things under control. We had a number of similar issues with operations in Libya, where the gaps in Europe's capabilities were again highlighted, being it lacked key enablers and force multipliers for example, and again the US had to provide these even though it initially did want to be involved stating that this was to be a European operation.

The EU can certainly have a key role in the Defence of Europe, but why would it want to do so separately form NATO. Tis means the costly process of basically duplicating what NATO already does, just to gain independence for non European NATO members interference in EU military actions. If the EU wishes to do this they if it has the will, especially to spend the considerable extra money to do so, but do they. Or are they simply relabelling existing NATO committed units as well as establishing formations that are barely more than paper entities until spend the money which may never happen. All great for PR but greatly restricted on what it can actually do.

In the end the UK will always be willing to offer what assistance it can to its allies, as will I imagine other non EU NATO states as long as the EU is not ashamed to ask for such help.

Revisionism galore. I put down the facts and you ignore them.

Bosnia was 1996. Cfsp etc introduced in 1998.

Lybia was not an EU operations. The germans and many oher opposed it. No EU involvement. Coalition of the willing under US leadership from behind.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by Lord Jim »

We will simply to have to agree that we have different interpretation of how things went. Whilst I accept that things went wrong when the EU, then including the UK tries to conduct operations outside of NATO, you seem to be of the opinion that the EU cannot fail in such operations. Whilst I have said post Brexit teh UK has made contributions to other nations operations in order to help when requested, you seem to think that our commitment to help or allies is insignificant and hasn't made a difference and wasn't needed.

You also seem to believe that every operation was driven by the US from the beginning like Libya, where in fact the US told the EU and european nations it did not want to become involved in any actions to support the uprising against Gadaffi and protect the revolutionaries in Benghazi.

It was only once operations had begun and expanded to try to oust Gadaffi that those european countries had to ask the UK to provide key enablers to allow the mission to proceed, like the Ohio class Cruise Missile Submarine which played a critical part in negating the Libya air defences.

Being biased and having no objectivity is not a good way to start a debate let alone win an argument. But at least as long as NATO remains, whatever the EU does will have little negative impact of Europe's security or how effective european operations overseas are.

J. Tattersall

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by J. Tattersall »

A view from the outgoing head of Eurodefense UK: https://www.defenceviewpoints.co.uk/art ... gh-uk-eyes

Gtal
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 31 Dec 2018, 19:55
Germany

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by Gtal »

I mean whats to disagree? Like this is history.

1996 comes before 1998. It's really very straightforward you know.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by Lord Jim »

Surprisingly my calendar says the same, who would have thought. I must admit I have been relating the efforts of the WEU including the UK with the EU as I believed this was the precursor to the CSSP and CFSP. But the WEU was mainly made up of EU members and the EU still lacks key capabilities and force enablers to be able to duplicate what NATO can do.

What the UK has always objected to was a organisation that would detract from NATO and start to reduce the ability of the latter to do its main job. Units are being double tapped, being assigned to both NATO and the EU. The Command and Control infrastructure is being duplicated, which the UK saw as a waste of money when NATO already existed.

I doubt The EU will ever become a super state under only government with a single military and military manufacturing complex, at least not in the short to medium term. Would France be willing to hand over its governmental stakes in its military industry and lose its control in many areas? France has always been a team players as long as it is the leader, and throws a tantrum if this is not agreed. Look at the issues teh Franc/German/Spanish next generation combat aircraft is having. Would the EU take over control of France's CASD? Would the Dutch or Germans deploy troops to protect a French dependency overseas, or would these dependencies be part of any EU Super State? I know troops have been sent to Mali but are they at the front line or patrolling the rear areas whilst teh French are up front? Will they remain as France draws down its troops even though the mission is not finished?

I see the EU conducting small scale overseas operations, but for quite a long time it will not be able to operate at a larger scale, it lacks the infrastructure to do that relying on individual nations instead. Older alliances will still be to main way operations will be carried out even if politics tries to get in the way. The UK will always provide help if it can even though it is now outside the EU and is developing close ties with the nations up north even though they are not members of NATO nor are they members of the EU. The EU members first and foremost policy could actually hurt the EU with regards to its relations with non EU members on everything except trade. It might have the best intensions but if it becomes insular and hides behind walls of red tape dictating what it can and cannot do to help others it's allies might start to look elsewhere first when they need help, such as to the US or China for example. This means that the EU could lose influence in the world except for trade and that could itself be impacted if the EU becomes too insular and inflexible.

Wow I am ranting on here, but I had to say a few things before moving on. This is what I think, my personal view. Other will object or disagree as they are entitled to. What other say or believe is totally relevant but one opinion dies not trump another's.

J. Tattersall

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by J. Tattersall »

Lord Jim wrote:Wow I am ranting on here
Yes you are. But that doesn't mean you're wrong.

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by Defiance »

Gtal wrote:1996 comes before 1998. It's really very straightforward you know.
Weren't you sniping at people for being pedants when they pointed out Fallon and Farron were different people in the IR thread?

Pots, kettles and so on.

Gtal
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 31 Dec 2018, 19:55
Germany

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by Gtal »

Defiance wrote:
Gtal wrote:1996 comes before 1998. It's really very straightforward you know.
Weren't you sniping at people for being pedants when they pointed out Fallon and Farron were different people in the IR thread?

Pots, kettles and so on.

What is ths place :D :D :D

If war breaks out in 1996 in Yugoslavia but he EFSP initiative is only created in 1998 then the EU can't be responsible for taking action im 1996 in Yugoslavia.
So it's disingenuous and misleading to makr the EU responsible for inaction in Yugoslavia.
The UK always says Defence in Europe is the primacy of NATO so clearly NATO has to take responsibility for Yugoslavia that pedantry?

What YOU are doing is apple and oranges.

I got 2 similar sounding names mixed up but that changes nothing about tte substance of my argument.


Lord Jim oon the other hand was rewriting history blaming the EU for Nato's failures. Revisionism.

J. Tattersall

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by J. Tattersall »

Gtal wrote:
Defiance wrote:
Gtal wrote:1996 comes before 1998. It's really very straightforward you know.
Weren't you sniping at people for being pedants when they pointed out Fallon and Farron were different people in the IR thread?

Pots, kettles and so on.

What is ths place :D :D :D

If war breaks out in 1996 in Yugoslavia but he EFSP initiative is only created in 1998 then the EU can't be responsible for taking action im 1996 in Yugoslavia.
So it's disingenuous and misleading to makr the EU responsible for inaction in Yugoslavia.
The UK always says Defence in Europe is the primacy of NATO so clearly NATO has to take responsibility for Yugoslavia that pedantry?

What YOU are doing is apple and oranges.

I got 2 similar sounding names mixed up but that changes nothing about tte substance of my argument.


Lord Jim oon the other hand was rewriting history blaming the EU for Nato's failures. Revisionism.
From Politico.EU in 2007, then called European Voice
Fifteen years of failure in the Balkans
The main reason for the creation of an EU foreign and security policy was the ineptitude of the Union in the face of the collapse of the former Yugoslavia into messy conflicts. To be precise, it was the overwhelming reality of the EU’s manifest failure to deal coherently with the Balkans as a challenge to its own interests, on its own continent. Fifteen years later, both the Balkans and the EU failure appear to be proceeding along their original trajectories.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politi ... lkans/amp/

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by TheLoneRanger »

EU always want 'more Europe' but support for a united military force will soon evaporate

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/ ... will-soon/

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by Lord Jim »

Gtal wrote:Lord Jim oon the other hand was rewriting history blaming the EU for NATO's failures. Revisionism.
Let me follow up on that. President Clinton was clear that the peacekeeping operations in Yugoslavia were to be the responsibility of Europe's members of NATO and that the US was not going to be involved. Things went pear shaped under Europe's responsibility and the US had to become involved and commit its resources to try to sort the mess out. Therefore it could be said that this shows that European part NATO is not viable without US support and resources, therefore a European military under the EU would have the same issues unless all nations can agrees to spend substantially more on defence, and agree on common policies such as rules of engagement, mission objectives, who builds what and who is in command.

But just look at the difference there is between those original EU members and the more recent east european members of the EU regarding the threat level Russia poses. Will the EU be able to come up with a policy regarding Turkey and its shift in focus from being a secular state to one being controlled more and more by Islamic teachings, which is supported by the majority of its population. The EU hasn't even been able to agree and sign off it own budget for years.

I can see individual countries carrying out operations on behalf of the EU but under national control, and at times a coalition of EU states with common policies working together, but each nation will have its own say on key issues like RoE. I cannot see the EU directly funding a joint military either, funding co-operation in research and development certainly, helping develop military platforms most likely, and having a political council like that of NATO to try to get everyone to agree on something possibly.

J. Tattersall

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by J. Tattersall »

Lord Jim wrote:
I can see individual countries carrying out operations on behalf of the EU but under national control, and at times a coalition of EU states with common policies working together, but each nation will have its own say on key issues like RoE. I cannot see the EU directly funding a joint military either, funding co-operation in research and development certainly, helping develop military platforms most likely, and having a political council like that of NATO to try to get everyone to agree on something possibly.
Agreed. Some press reports in last few days about an EU Initial Entry Force of 5,000 strong but with Germany reportedly against and wanting coalitions of the willing instead (let's see whether this changes with German election in a few weeks).

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by Pseudo »

TheLoneRanger wrote:EU always want 'more Europe' but support for a united military force will soon evaporate

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/ ... will-soon/
I can see that getting a lot bigger pretty quickly. Governments are always going to want to send someone else's forces in to harms way overseas when it's a mission that isn't a critical national interest to themselves, especially humanitarian interventions. If only because then someone else is responsible for the repercussions when something inevitably goes wrong.


Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by Lord Jim »

Well if any decisions require a unanimous vote by EU members, I would say that the use of any EU Military Force will be strictly limited, that than would still require all EU members to agree to increase their defence spending to acquire the necessary capabilities that Europe presently relies on the UK and/or the UK to provide.

Also such a force as being proposed by France would require the commitment of the Rapid Response units from each EU member's military, units that are crucial to NATOs planning on dealing with external threats to its members. Can units be assigned to both the EU force and NATO?. Also having an EU force in addition to NATO is yet another division an adversary could exploits through misinformation etc.

J. Tattersall

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by J. Tattersall »

Whatever one may think of it, the AUKUS announcement of Wednesday evening seems to have overshadowed the EU's own Indo-Pacific strategy https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pressco ... DA_21_4709 unveiled yesterday and von der Leyen's State of the (European) Union address of Wednesday morning now seems eclipsed by events https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pressco ... CH_21_4701. Excerpts on EU defence as follows:
Honourable Members,

Witnessing events unfold in Afghanistan was profoundly painful for all the families of fallen servicemen and servicewomen.

We bow to the sacrifice of those soldiers, diplomats and aid workers who laid down their lives.

To make sure that their service will never be in vain, we have to reflect on how this mission could end so abruptly.

There are deeply troubling questions that allies will have to tackle within NATO.

But there is simply no security and defence issue where less cooperation is the answer. We need to invest in our joint partnership and to draw on each side's unique strength.

This is why we are working with Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg on a new EU-NATO Joint Declaration to be presented before the end of the year.

But this is only one part of the equation.

Europe can – and clearly should – be able and willing to do more on its own. But if we are to do more, we first need to explain why. I see three broad categories.

First, we need to provide stability in our neighbourhood and across different regions.

We are connected to the world by narrow straits, stormy seas and vast land borders. Because of that geography, Europe knows better than anyone that if you don't deal in time with the crisis abroad, the crisis comes to you.

Secondly, the nature of the threats we face is evolving rapidly: from hybrid or cyber-attacks to the growing arms race in space.

Disruptive technology has been a great equaliser in the way power can be used today by rogue states or non-state groups.

You no longer need armies and missiles to cause mass damage. You can paralyse industrial plants, city administrations and hospitals – all you need is your laptop. You can disrupt entire elections with a smartphone and an internet connection.

The third reason is that the European Union is a unique security provider. There will be missions where NATO or the UN will not be present, but where the EU should be.

On the ground, our soldiers work side-by-side with police officers, lawyers and doctors, with humanitarian workers and human rights defenders, with teachers and engineers.

We can combine military and civilian, along with diplomacy and development – and we have a long history in building and protecting peace.

The good news is that over the past years, we have started to develop a European defence ecosystem.

But what we need is the European Defence Union.

In the last weeks, there have been many discussions on expeditionary forces. On what type and how many we need: battlegroups or EU entry forces.

This is no doubt part of the debate – and I believe it will be part of the solution.

But the more fundamental issue is why this has not worked in the past.

You can have the most advanced forces in the world – but if you are never prepared to use them - of what use are they?

What has held us back until now is not just a shortfall of capacity – it is the lack of political will.

And if we develop this political will, there is a lot that we can do at EU level.

Allow me to give you three concrete examples:

First, we need to build the foundation for collective decision-making – this is what I call situational awareness.

We fall short if Member States active in the same region, do not share their information on the European level. It is vital that we improve intelligence cooperation.

But this is not just about intelligence in the narrow sense.

It is about bringing together the knowledge from all services and all sources. From space to police trainers, from open source to development agencies. Their work gives us a unique scope and depth of knowledge.

It is out there!

But we can only use that, to make informed decisions if we have the full picture. And this is currently not the case. We have the knowledge, but it is disjoined. Information is fragmented.

This is why the EU could consider its own Joint Situational Awareness Centre to fuse all the different pieces of information.

And to be better prepared, to be fully informed and to be able to decide.

Secondly, we need to improve interoperability. This is why we are already investing in common European platforms, from fighter jets, to drones and cyber.

But we have to keep thinking of new ways to use all possible synergies. One example could be to consider waiving VAT when buying defence equipment developed and produced in Europe.

This would not only increase our interoperability, but also decrease our dependencies of today.

Third, we cannot talk about defence without talking about cyber. If everything is connected, everything can be hacked. Given that resources are scarce, we have to bundle our forces. And we should not just be satisfied to address the cyber threat, but also strive to become a leader in cyber security.

It should be here in Europe where cyber defence tools are developed. This is why we need a European Cyber Defence Policy, including legislation on common standards under a new European Cyber Resilience Act.

So, we can do a lot at EU level. But Member States need to do more too.

This starts with a common assessment of the threats we face and a common approach to dealing with them. The upcoming Strategic Compass is a key process of this discussion.

And we need to decide how we can use all of the possibilities that are already in the Treaty.

This is why, under the French Presidency, President Macron and I will convene a Summit on European defence.

It is time for Europe to step up to the next level.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by Lord Jim »

Strange there is no mention of how the EU is going to pay for these new joint capabilities.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by Scimitar54 »

Further disintegration perhaps ? :idea:

J. Tattersall

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by J. Tattersall »

Lord Jim wrote:Strange there is no mention of how the EU is going to pay for these new joint capabilities.
Quite so. It is quite a lot said with few concrete proposals. The Joint Situational Awareness Centre is an interesting one. It might add value by putting lower classified information In one place and analysing it but I doubt that EU members will be happy to share highly classified intelligence with. Her penultimate line says:
This is why, under the French Presidency, President Macron and I will convene a Summit on European defence.
I think this pretty much sums things up. The vast majority of EU members are pretty lukewarm about EU defence, or even actively antagonistic towards it. It is so often seen as a project not merely championed by France, but disproportionately serving France's policy agenda. Once again there is the very real possibility that member states will feel that they're being coerced, with the French European Union Presidency being used as a lever (and during a French general election year at that). However there it might well all backfire. While EU member states might well be content with a bit of tokenism (e.g. recasting EU battlegroups into something else), they are unlikely to want to submerge they own national interests to further the grandeur of France. Following Afghanistan and AUKUS they will also not want to get involved in anything resembling a personalised spat between French and American leaders.

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by inch »

EU defence ,ha don't make us laugh ,they got no hope or intention , couldn't organise to fight out of a paper bag ,glad uk doesn't want to get tired into their defence structure ,

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5551
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by Tempest414 »

There is a lot of thing the EU can do but first they will have to agree a new 2.5 GDP defence budget across the Union to pay for it.

However for now the EU states have

2 x Carriers
5 x LHD's
8 x LPD's
5 x LST's

They could have 1 Carrier group and 2 LRG's at very high readiness at all times

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by inch »

could have but not prepared to use it and go anywhere lol ,total waste of time

J. Tattersall

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by J. Tattersall »

Dutch PM Mark Rutte met Boris Johnson at Downing Street yesterday evening. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-m ... ember-2021
No indication from press release of Dutch or wider EU pushback on AUKUS. Criticism seems to be largely coming from France. Not much sign of EU solidarity yet.

J. Tattersall

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by J. Tattersall »

Gtal wrote:And you guys do understand that the UK has been the main obstacle to the development of any meaningful EU defence structures to ingratiate itself with US administrations right?
It's important to understand that EU minus UK completely changes the game on defence cooperation and integration on an EU level.
Notwithstanding these histrionics from a while back following the progress on the EU's Strategic Compass is informative: https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-lead ... irections/
For EU leaders, ‘strategic compass’ points in different directions
After dinner discussion in Slovenia, European Council calls for greater autonomy and stronger ties to US.
and https://www.euractiv.com/section/defenc ... -strategy/
EU leaders caught in either-or argument over European defence strategy
Amid disunity over the way forward on European defence, EU leaders discussed on Tuesday night (5 October) whether the bloc should enhance its capacity to act independently and/or strenghten its partnership with NATO, but with no clear result.
The bottom line is that rather than the UK having been 'the main obstacle', it seems that there is something a lot more fundamental at play here. The EU (unsurprisingly) seems to be unable to agree where its main foreign policy and security threat lies. There are clearly many views along the spectrum of member state opinion, but there appears to be a particular polarization between the eastern members (who perceive an existential threat from Russia) and France, with the latter now appearing the odd one out in EU defence.

Those who saw the Afghan withdrawal crisis, coupled with AUKUS, as heralding a 21st century Suez moment do not seem to be being proved right. Strategically the game does not seem to have changed much.

Post Reply