Still no answer, at least no cogent answer to why there is a need for a EU defence alliance.
Cyber attacks, piracy, Russia?
Still all issues that can and should be managed by UN or NATO…no need for PESCO or advancements on the agreement.
The bigger challenges that will arise will be within the EU, as democracy of individual states is repeatedly challenged by EU mandarins.
The inability of Brussels to allow for member states not going with treaties per example. Hence the decision by Irish lackeys in government not to allow us a vote on PESCO. Know why? Because we would have rejected it. Neutrality is enshrined in our DNA as a country whether we agree or not. US warplanes in Shannon compromise that. PESCO destroys it but we have zero say in either event.
Now for paranoia moment:
The United States of Europe is an insidious growing belief, that will see smaller states consumed by the monolith force.
@Flobs asks why does it bother you so much? Maybe addressed to @Kopstar …but I will answer…
Somply because it is not required.
It leads to military movement that can only end with trouble.
It precedes greater military/defence strategy that will compromise smaller member states.
It precedes USEurope.
There is no earthly reason to sabre rattle against no enemy.
That is the heart of it though. The UN is incapable of handling the vast majority of situations, functional only when American, Russian, and Chinese interests converge. When did that last happen? As for NATO, that is fundamentally an American institution that relies on US capabilities. The past five years have suggested that is no longer viable, and was problematic long before that. To the extent that democratic Europe might have different interests from the US, it may need a capacity to defend them. It may need a capacity to project power, at least regionally.
I am not sure that quite gets you to a US of E, but I can certainly understand those who see it as a step on the road. Does that mean an EU military is necessary? Maybe not, but I would suggest something outside NATO probably is, and an EU military does have the advantage of achieving scale. But it does raise some very difficult questions.
Imo your jumping far ahead of where we are at.
As I said before we can not even guarantee our UN commitments, as for NATO it’s completely reliant on the US (leaving aside ‘our’ divergences from that ‘nation’) even to be ‘useful’ to Nato we need a strategy that can support NATO rather than just being political puppets for the USA.
My question to Kopstar is evident, I would ask you the same. I am taking onboard what you say however I am of the opposing view to you in a very different discourse. You wish for Ireland to remain secular, that’s fine however it is this that caused Europe so many problems in the past from outside aggressions.
I have given some of my reasons for supporting a unified European defense strategy. You don’t respect them fair enough. Personally I don’t wish ‘us’ to be so reliant on USA or other and we have the population, economy … to be so much more.
I believe adherrance to it should be voluntary, if Ireland feels it doesn’t belong then fair enough in my view however I would still wish Ireland to be involved in the supply of parts and stuff.
This secular approach I find scary particularly from ‘countries’ that think they are shielded by the others. It’s not very generous.
Capacity to project power?
So not really defence in its most basic form.
I understand the points on UN and NATO but I cannot see a EU army as being axregulated equitable force. In time the smaller members will be subsumed into the majority think…thats a capacity for disaster.
No, but not something Ireland has never done either. Ireland’s (IMO profoundly praiseworthy) history of peacekeeping missions is power projection by any other name, albeit AFAIK only done under the aegis of the UN to date. At some point, Europe may need that kind of power, beyond defence, or allow other powers to dictate outcomes - which I would argue it more or less has since WW2, perhaps unnecessarily so since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The EU is clearly not only a trade bloc and it hasn’t been since Maastricht at the latest. It is a political alliance which aims to promote the common interests of all Europeans.
I would argue against that and don’t find such statements helpful.
There needs to be discussion and individuals ending disscussion like that I find unpleasant. Your views are not shared by everyone!
One of the issues for me is that one of the reasons that internal disputes arose within NATO is that the US, correctly, was annoyed that the majority of NATO member countries were not doing their bit.
Each country agrees to spend at least 2% of GDP on Defence. The US, of course, spends a lot more than this. I think it is entitled to feel that the majority of NATO countries are gaining the benefit of a military alliance with the US without playing/paying their part.
As you know, NATO is an alliance of 30 countries. Of those 30, 21 are EU member states. At the summit in Wales in 2014 it was agreed that member states would meet the minimum threshold of 2% spending on defence. At that time, only Greece (of those 21) met that threshold. 7 years later, 14 out of 21 of those EU member states still fall short of the 2% agreed.
Of the 7 EU member states that are meeting that threshold, the geography of the top 6 is notable.
The US would be forgiven for wondering what will change in the event that the EU mandated for itself its own army, entirely independent from the US, when its own individual member states have long enjoyed the protection of NATO (/the US) without doing their bit.
Agreed absolutely. The US calls the shots because with the partial exceptions of the UK and France, the rest of the European partners simply haven’t had the capacity to present an alternative. There is no pathway to the EU being substantially autonomous within this issue set that doesn’t involve significant investment.
However, one of the major issues is the importance of the US for integration of forces. As constructed, NATO really is the US plus auxiliaries. It isn’t just a question of resources, but also the roles. Obviously, that is mission-dependent to a significant degree, but if the EU feels a foreign policy imperative to become less dependent on the US, it simply has to replace the American functionality within NATO forces.
Agreed - and as you know, the EU has already gone a significant way to doing just that. EU member states are already deploying troops with EU flags on their uniforms in what are ostensibly peace-keeping/humanitarian initiatives. What the EU seeks for itself is military resources (personnel and hardware) that it itself holds, rather than simply individual EU member states being deployed under an EU banner. And to what end? Peace-keeping? Humanitarian?
When phrases like “defend its interests” are thrown about the objectives become a little bit more expansionist. Does the EU propose to intervene in non-EU states? On what basis? Does the EU consider that maintaining its own forces would act as a deterent to Russia? Intimidate China, in some way? And all of this without an alliance with the US founded on the principle of collective defence?
Such potential reach, far beyond the founding principles of the EEC, and at whose direction? Upon whose democratic mandate?
The direction of travel is deeply concerning and has been for some time.
Apparently in 2020 France did manage to get past the 2%. I find it disgraceful and disturbing. This is why I keep saying at the moment there is no momentum for a European defense strategy. However I am hoping it will come about and of course France is the major partner to lead this.
